Jj  I  B  R  A  R  Y 

OF  THE 

Theological  Seminary, 


. 

PRINCETON,  N.  J. 

(  Vi  q/’ 

Divir.ro  3X20.5 

Shelf 

Section  •  ^ . • 

Book 

. No, ....  J.  .-i . . — 

V 


v 


M 


r 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/eccedeusessaysonOOpark_O 


Akessrs.  ftooerts  Brothers'  Publications, 


LIVES  OF  EXEMPLARY  WOMEN. 


Messrs.  Roberts’  Bros,  are  publishing  a  series  of  Lives  of  Exemplary 
Women,  uniform  in  size  and  price.  The  first  volume  is 

MEMOIRS  AND  CORRESPONDENCE  OP  MADAME 
EECAM.IER,  Translated  from  the  French  and  edited  by  Misa 
Luystkr.  With  a  fine  portrait  of  Madame  Recamier,  Seventh  edition. 
One  handsome  12mo  volume.  Price  $  1.50. 

“  Her  own  contributions  to  it  are  exceedingly  brief,  but  her  individuality  permeates  thF 
whole  work  and  gives  it  unity-  Site  was  undoubtedly  a  woman  of  genius;  but  it  was  in  her 
life  alone,  in  her  noble  friendships,  in  her  unselfish  devotion  to  all  bound  to  her  by  any  ties, 
that  gave  her  genius  expression,  and  it  is  only  fair,  therefore,  that  she  should  attain  immor¬ 
tality  not  through  the  labor  of  her  own  spirit,  but  rather  through  the  praise  of  those  by 
whom  she  was  so  well  beloved.”  —  Virginia  Vaughan  in  “  The  Leader." 

The  second  volume  is 

LIFE  AND  LETTERS  OP  MADAME  SWETCHINE.  By 
Count  he  Falloux.  Translated  by  Mies  Preston.  Seventh  edition 
In  one  volume.  12mo.  Price  $1.50. 

“  The  Life  and  Letters  of  Madame  Swetchine,  is  a  companion  volume  to  Mme.  Recamier, 
and  both  works  give  us  two  phases  of  contemporary  Paris  life,  aud  two  characters  that 
with  some  accidental  resemblances,  present  strong  points  of  contrast. 

“The  social  influence  both  women  exercised  was  good,  but  when  we  compare  the  two, 
Madame  Recamier's  sinks  to  a  much  lower  level.  She  (Madame  It.)  was  gentle  and  kind, 
ready  to  sacrifice  herself  to  any  extent  to  advance  the  material  influence  of  tier  friends,  bul 
she  was  essentially  a  worldly  woman;  whereas  Madame  Swetchine  was  *  in  the  world  buf 
not  of  it.  She  exerted  an  immense  spiritual  as  well  as  intellectual  influence  on  all  who 
approached  her,  and  raised  her  friends  to  her  own  level.  Madame  Recamier  made  her  asso¬ 
ciates  pleased  with  themselves,  whilst  Madame  Swetchine  taught  hers  to  forget  themselves. 

“  As  a  biography,  the  life  of  Madame  Swetchine  is  more  satisfactory  and  much  better 
written ;  that  of  Madame  Recamier  is  fuller  of  personal  anecdote  respecting  distinguished 
persons,  and  as  a  book  of  reference  is  more  valuable.  We  frequently  meet  the  same  people 
in  each,  ai  d  iu  this  respect  they  serve  to  illustrate  and  explain  each  other.”  —  Pro»ridenae 
Journal. 

The  third  volume  is 

THE  FRIENDSHIPS  OF  WOMEN.  By  Rev.  W.  R.  Alger. 
Seventh  edition.  Oue  volume,  12mo.  Price  $  1.50. 

“Mr  Alger  is  among  our  most  diligent  students  and  earnest  thinkers;  and  this  volume 
will  add  to  the  reputation  he  has  fairly  earned  as  the  occupant  of  quite  a  prominent  place  in 
American  literature.  He  deserves  all  the  popularity  he  has  won ;  for,  always  thoughtful, 
sincere,  and  excellent  of  purpose  with  ills  pen,  he  allows  no  success  to  seduce  him  into  any 
content  with  what  he  has  already  accomplished.  His  ‘Friendships  of  Women,'  for  many 
reasons,  will  have  a  wide  circle  of  readers,  and  cannot  fail  to  increase  our  sense  of  the 
worth  of  human  nature,  as  it  enthusiastically  delineates  some  of  its  most  elevated  manifes¬ 
tations.  By  telling  what  woman  has  been,  he  tells  what  woman  may  be;  intellectually  as 
well  as  morally,  in  the  beauty  of  her  mind  as  well  as  in  the  affections  of  her  heart,  and  the 
loveliness  of  her  person.”  —  Salem  Gazette. 

The  fourth  volume  is 

SAINT  BEUVE’S  PORTRAITS  OF  CELEBRATED 

WOMEN. 

MADAM R  DE  SE  VIQNE.  MADAME  DE  DURAS. 

MADAME  DE  LA  FAYETTE.  MADAME  DE  REMUS  AT. 

MADAME  DE  SOUZA.  MADAME  DE  KRUDENER. 

MADAME  ROLAtfD.  MADAME  GUIZOT. 

MADAME  DE  STAEL. 

To  match  “Madame  Recamier,”  “Madame  Swetchine,”  and  “The 
Friendships  of  Women.”  In  one  volume,  12mo.  Price  $1.50. 

Mailed,  post-paid ,  to  any  addrdss,  on  receipt  of  the  price ,  ty  the 
Publishers. 


Messrs.  Roberts  Brothers’  publications 


THE  GREAT  RELIGIOUS  BOOKS  OF  THE  DAY 

ECO  E  II  O  M  O. 
ECCE  DEUS. 

Alth -ugh  It  Is  now  some  years  since  the  >LhiV.«t>n  oi  •* Ecce  Homo”  and 
"Ecce  Deus,”  the  sale  of  these  extraordinary  a-'u  »eL  ar.vaOlo  books  continue? 
q-iite  as  large  as  ever.  Some  of  the  ablest  and  mv'SV  cuRvv.UeJ  minds  in  the  world 
bave  been  devoted  to  a  critical  analysis  of  then.. 

The  foremost  man  in  England,  the  Right  Horo*-&bfe  W.  E.  Gladstone,  has  just 
published  a  book  devoted  entirely  to  a  review  of  u  Ik  ce  Horn"*,'’  in  which  he  uses 
the  following  language  :  — 

“  To  me  it  appears  that  each  page  of  the  book  breathes  out,  as  it  proceeds,  what 
we  may  call  an  air,  which  glows  musical  by  degreei,  end  which,  becoming  more 
distinct  even  as  it  swells,  takes  form,  as  in  due  time  w*.  find,  in  the  articulate  con¬ 
clusion,  ‘  Surely,  this  is  the  Son  of  God  ;  surely,  this  is  the  King  of  Heaven.’  ” 

Of  “  Ecce  Deus,”  which  may  be  considered  the  complement  of  “  Ecce  Homo, v 
there  are  almost  as  mauy  admirers,  the  sale  of  both  books  being  nearly  a’ike. 

Both  volumes  bound  uniformly  Sold  separately.  Price  of  each,  $1.60. 

Prof.  Ingraham’s  Works. 

THE  PRINCE  OP  THE  HOUSE  OP  DAVID;  or,  Three 

Years  in  th6  Holy  City. 

THE  PILLAR  OP  FIRE ;  or,  Israel  in  Bondage. 

THE  THRONE  OP  DAVID;  from  the  Consecration  of  the  Shepherd 
of  Bethlehem  to  the  Rebellion  of  Prince  Absalom. 

The  extraordinary  interest  evinced  in  these  books,  from  the  date  of  their  pub¬ 
lication  to  the  present  time,  has  in  no  wise  abated.  The  demand  for  them  is  still 
act  large  as  ever. 

In  three  volumes,  12mo,  cloth,  gilt,  with  illustrations.  Sold  separately.  Prloe 
of  each,  $2.00. 

The  Heaven  Series. 

HEAVEN  OUR  HOME.  We  have  no  Saviour  but  Jesus,  and  no  Home 
but  Heaven. 

MEET  FOR  HEAVEN.  A  State  of  Grace  upon  Earth  the  only  Procu¬ 
ration  for  a  State  of  Glory  in  Heaven. 

LIFE  IN  HEAVEN.  There  Faith  is  changed  into  Sight,  and  Hope  is 
passed  into  Blissful  Fruition. 

F  07?i  Rev.  Samuel  L.  Tuttle ,  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  American  Bible  Society 

“  I  wish  that  every  Christian  person  could  have  the  perusal  of  these  writings. 

I  can  never  be  sufficiently  thankful  to  him  who  wrote  them  for  the  service  that  he 
has  rendered  to  me  and  all  others.  They  have  given  form  and  substance  to  every 
tning  revealed  in  Vie  Scriptures  respecting  our  heavenly  home  of  love ,  and  they 
have  done  not  a  little  to  invest  it  with  the  most  powerful  attractions  to  my  heart 
Since  I  hive  enjoyed  the  privilege  of  following  the  thought  of  their  author,  I  have 
felt  that  there  was  a  reality  in  all  these  things  which  I  have  never  felt  before  ;  and 
I  lind  myself  often  thanking  God  for  putting  it  into  the  heart  of  a  poor  worm  of 
the  dust  to  spread  such  glorious  representations  before  our  race,  all  of  wboer 
Stand  in  need  of  such  a  rest.” 

In  three  volumes,  16mo.  Sold  separately.  Price  of  each,  $1  25- 
Mailed,  post-paid,  to  any  address,  on  receipt  of  the  price  by  the  publisher* 

10 


ECCE  DEUS 


ESSAYS  ON  THE 


Life  and  Doctrine  of  Jesus  Christ. 


WITH  CONTROVERSIAL  NOTES 


ON 

\ 

“ECCE  HOMO.” 


BOSTON: 

ROBERTS  BROTHERS. 

i  S  76 . 


A  NEW  EDITION,  REVISED  AND  ENLARGED. 


PREFACE. 

A  careful  consideration  of  the  various  points 
raised  in  Ecce  Homo  induced  the  present  writer  to 
undertake  a  re-survey  of  the  Life  and  Doctrine  of 
Jesus  Christ.  He  found,  however,  that  he  could  not 
occupy  the  stand-point  from  which  Ecce  Ho7no  had 
been  written  without,  as  it  appeared  to  him,  ignoring 
the  mystery  of  the  Incarnation,  and  thus  putting 
himself  into  a  false  relation  to  all  subsequent  facts 
in  Christian  history.  The  following  pages  will  show 
that  on  several  points  the  writer  finds  himself  in 
perfect  coincidence  with  the  author  of  Ecce  Homo ; 
and  he  ventures  to  believe  that  on  those  points  upon 
which  the  differences  are  irreconcilable  he  has  not 
been  betrayed  into  a  tone  which  is  inconsistent  with 
the  respect  due  to  the  finest  genius  and  the  frankest 
candor.  In  the  following  pages  the  writer  proceeds 
upon  four  convictions  :  — 

First :  That  it  is  not  merely  difficult,  but  absolute¬ 
ly  impossible,  rightly  to  survey  the  Life  and  Work 
of  Jesus  Christ  without  distinctly  acknowledging  the 
unprecedented  conditions  under  which  Jesus  Christ 
became  incarnate. 

Second :  That  those  conditions  can  alone  account 
for,  and  are  essential  to  a  true  interpretation  of,  the 


6 


PREFACE. 


entire  doctrine  and  phenomena  associated  with  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Third :  That  those  conditions  and  the  whole  course 
which  they  inaugurated  (the  miraculous  conception, 
the  doctrine,  the  miracle,  the  death  and  toe  resur¬ 
rection),  constitute  a  unity  which  .necessitates  the  con¬ 
clusion  that  Jesus  Christ  was  God  Incarnate.  And  — 

Fourth :  That  the  author  of  Ecce  Homo ,  having 
overlooked  or  ignored  those  conditions,  has  worked 
from  a  wrong  centre,  and  reached  several  sophistical 
and  untenable  conclusions. 

It  appears  from  his  Preface  that  the  author  of  Ecce 
Homo  felt  himself  obliged  to  trace  Christ’s  u  oiog- 
raphy  from  point  to  point,  and  accept  those  conclu¬ 
sions  about  him,  not  which  Church  doctors  or  even 
apostles  have  sealed  with  their  authority,  but  which 
the  facts  themselves,  critically  weighed,  appear  to 
warrant.”  The  present  writer  does  not  undertake 
to  suggest  that  Church  doctors  and  apostles  did  not 
critically  weigh  the  facts  themselves ;  but  he  does 
undertake  to  say  that  no  weighing  of  the  facts  can  be 
satisfactory  which  ignores  the  fact  which  lies  at  the 
base  of  the  Christian  structure.  Nor  does  he  see  how 
the  author  of  Ecce  Homo  can  trace  the  biography  of 
Jesus  Christ  “  from  point  to  point,”  when  he  only 
professes  to  “  place  himself  in  imagination  at  the  time 
when  he  whom  we  call  Christ  bore  no  such  name, 
but  was  simply  ....  a  young  man  of  prom’se, 
popular  with  those  who  knew  him,  and  appearing  to 
enjoy  the  Divine  favor.”  How  can  a  biography  be 
traced  u  from  point  to  point  ”  when  the  “  critical 
weighing  of  the  facts  themselves”  does  not  begin 


PREFACE.  7 

until  the  subject  of  the  biography  has  actually  attained 
a  “  promising  ’  and  “popular  position”?  If  a  biog¬ 
raphy  is  to  be  traced  from  “  point  to  point,”  how  can 
it  be  done  without  referring  to  the  birth,  if  not  to  the 
ancestry,  of  the  person  whose  biography  is  traced? 
Suppose  that  a  writer  should  undertake  to  trace  from 
point  to  point  the  biography  of  the  author  of  Ecce 
Homo ,  would  the  author,  or  would  the  public,  be 
satisfied  if  the  writer  did  not  open  the  narrative  earlier 
than  the  time  of  the  appearance  of  that  book?  Yet 
this  is  what  the  author  of  Ecce  Homo  does  with  the 
biography  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  with  this  disadvantage 
on  his  part,  that  he  overlooks  a  fact  without  which  all 
the  succeeding  facts  never  could  have  transpired.  No* 
“  young  man  of  promise,  popular  with  those  who 
knew  him,  and  appearing  to  enjoy  the  Divine  favor” 
(and  there  have  been  tens  of  thousands  of  such  young 
men),  ever  did  what  Jesus  Christ  did  ;  a  fact  which, 
“  critically  weighed,”  certainly  suggests  the  necessity 
of  going  farther  back  than  the  time  of  “  promise  ”  and 
“  popularity,”  in  order  to  find  out  whether  there  was  a 
reason  explanatory  of  the  whole  series  of  phenomena. 

The  embarrassment  of  the  present  writer  was  con¬ 
siderably  increased  by  another  expression  in  the 
Preface  to  Ecce  Homo:  —  “After  reading  a  good 
many  books  on  Christ,  he  felt  still  constrained  to 
confess  that  there  was  no  historical  character  whose 
motives,  objects,  and  feelings  remained  so  incompre¬ 
hensible  to  him.  The  inquiry  which  has  proved  use¬ 
ful  to  himself  may  chance  to  be  useful  to  others.” 
How  the  author  could  diminish  the  incomprehensible¬ 
ness  of  Christ’s  life  by  simply  regarding  Christ  as  “ 


a 


8 


PREFACE. 


young  man  of  promise,  popular  with  those  who  knew 
him,  and  appearing  to  enjoy  the  Divine  favor,”  does 
not  appear.  The  present  writer  is  u  constrained  to 
confess  ”  that,  in  proportion  as  he  regards  Jesus  Christ 
in  this  light  merely,  the  Life  as  narrated  in  the  New 
Testament  becomes  utterly  /^comprehensible.  Not 
until  he  realizes  the  fundamental  fact  of  the  Incarna¬ 
tion  does  he  understand  the  sense  in  which  Jesus 
Christ  calls  himself  Son  of  God  and  Son  of  Man. 

The  present  writer  felt  the  difficulty  of  choosing  a 
title  for  his  book.  It  seemed  to  him  that  if  the  author 
of  Ecce  Homo  intended  to  maintain  the  Godhead  of 
Jesus  Christ,  it  would  not  be  unnatural  for  him  to 
select  the  title  of  Ecce  Deus;  on  this  point,  however, 
he  was  of  course  not  informed,  and  he  adopted  the 
present  name  because  it  expresses  most  concisely  the 
doctrine  which  is  taught  in  the  book. 

Ecce  Deus  is  not  a  reply  to  Ecce  Homo.  It  claims 
to  be  an  examination  of  the  Life  and  Doctrine  of 
Jesus  Christ  conducted  on  independent  ground. 


) 

CONTENTS. 

CHAP.  PAGE 

I.  The  Holy  Thing . 13 

II.  The  Written  Word . 24 

III.  The  Written  Word  ( coniimted )  .  .  38 

IV.  The  Inauguration . 46 

V.  The  Inauguration  :  the  Diabolic 

Phase  . 53 

VI.  The  Mighty  Works  . 66 

VII.  The  Calling  of  Men . 84 

VIII.  Christ  rejecting  Men . 103 

IX.  The  Church . 119 

X.  The  Church  left  in  the  World  .  140 

XI.  Christ  adjusting  Human  Relations  156 

4  XII.  Christ  the  Contemporary  of  all 

Ages . 173 

XIII.  These  Sayings  of  Mine . 190 

XIV.  Christ  as  an  Interlocutor  .  .  .  207 

XV.  Eternal  Punishments . 219 


(ii) 


12 


CONTENTS. 


CHAP.  PAGE. 

XVI.  The  Cross  of  Christ . 240 

XVII.  The  Relation  of  the  Cross  to 

the  Law . 262 

XVIII.  The  Relation  of  the  Cross  to 

Practical  Morals . 283 

XIX.  The  Posthumous  Ministry  of  Jesus 

Christ . 316 


XX.  CONTRVOERSIAL  NOTES  ON  “  ECCH 


Homo  ” 


32S 


ECCE  DEUS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  HOLY  THING. 

MANY  false  Christs  have  gone  out  into  the  world. 

The  Christ  that  was  born  in  Bethlehem  has  now 
to  compete  with  the  Christ  born  in  the  poet’s  fancy, 
carved  out  of  an  ideal  humanity,  or  developed  out  of 
a  benevolent  sentiment.  This  noble,  simple  Nazarene 
has  been  left  behind  somewhere,  probably  in  the  Tem¬ 
ple,  or  has  passed  through  so  many  guises  that  the 
characteristic  lineaments  have  been  lost.  This  cir¬ 
cumstance  is  a  significant  feature  of  the  spiritual  civil¬ 
ization  of  the  day.  Deepest  and  truest  among  its 
lessons  is  the  doctrine  that  men  must  have  a  Christ. 
There  has  ever  been  a  motion,  a  gravitation,  more  or 
less  palpable,  towards  a  man  who  should  be  the  com¬ 
plement  of  every  other  man  ;  and  who,  by  the  perfect¬ 
ness  of  his  manhood,  should  be  able  to  restore  and 
preserve  the  equipoise  which  universal  consciousness 
affirms  to  have  been  disturbed  or  lost. 

The  Incarnation  is  the  radical  mystery  in  the  life  of 
the  Christ  accepted  by  the  Church.  Without  follow¬ 
ing  the  theologian  into  doctrine,  we  are  bound  to  fol¬ 
low  the  historian  into  matters  of  fact.  The  historian 

I 


H 


ECCE  DEUS. 


introduces  a  man,  under  the  name  of  Jesus,  who  was 
begotten  as  no  other  man  was  ever  begotten.  He  does 
not  represent  the  usual  conditions  of  human  birth,  but 
stands  alone  among  all  men.  The  mysteriousness  of 
his  origin,  even  if  it  be  but  a  supposition,  will  supply 
an  easily  available  test  of  his  entire  life  and  teaching ; 
the  man  who  begins  as  no  other  man  ever  began,  must 
continue  as  no  other  man  ever  continued. 

In  other  senses  than  that  of  the  procreation  of  human 
life,  there  have  been  miraculous  conceptions  in  every 
age  —  conceptions  by  the  overshadowing  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  too.  Every  foremost  thought  of  God  among 
men,  every  struggle  of  the  soul  in  the  direction  in  which 
God  is  supposed  to  have  gone,  has  been  an  effect  of 
divine  operation  upon  the  mind.  In  Jesus  Christ  alone 
have  we  a  life  which  claims  to  have  been  produced 
immediately  by  a  superhuman  relation  to  the  human 
body.  Yet,  though  so  produced,  “the  holy  thing” 
born  of  the  Virgin  did  not  collide  with  the  human 
race  as  an  unexpected  antagonistic  element,  but  took 
his  place  in  the  human  family  by  a  process  which,’ on 
one  side,  was  fitted  to  awaken  awe,  and  on  the  other, 
to  excite  sympathy.  The  world  of  the  East  had  been 
accustomed  to  what  may  be  termed  miraculous  con¬ 
ceptions  in  the  intellectual  sphere,  as  the  world  of  the 
West  has  since  become.  Intellectual  history  presents 
a  succession  of  births  quite,  in  their  degree  and  ac¬ 
cording  to  their  nature,  as  inexplicable  as  any  occur¬ 
rence  that  could  transpire  in  the  merely  material 
sphere.  “  The  Holy  Ghost  has  come  upon,  and  the 
power  of  the  Highest  has  overshadowed,”  all  who 
have  wrought  upon  the  springs  of  civilization  and  en- 


THE  HOLY  THING. 


15 


riched  the  resources  of  human  life  :  poem  and  picture, 
book  and  statue,  that  have  touched  the  world’s  soul, 
and  given  it  any  hint  that  there  was  a  portion  of  the 
universe  beyond  the  narrow  visual  line,  or  a  deeper 
life  in  itself  than  could  be  sustained  by  bread  alone, 
have  been,  notwithstanding  the  apparent  irreverence 
of  the  expression,  miraculous  conceptions,  fruits  of 
the  Spirit’s  strife  with  the  human  mind.  The  Spirit 
had  to  move  upon  intellectual  chaos,  and  now  all 
orderliness,  01  beauty,  or  music,  is  attributable  to  his 
power.  The  grim  spectre  of  traditional  orthodoxy 
may  shudder  at  the  notion,  yet  rather  than  pronounce 
the  genius  of  civilization  atheistic,  it  may  be  more 
reverent  to  describe  it  as  a  conception  and  produc¬ 
tion  of  the  divine  energy  operating  through  human 
instrumentalities.  The  excess  of  difficulty  is  on  the 
side  of  atheism,  not  of  inspiration.  On  such  a  subject 
men  are  not  required  to  be  more  orthodox  than  the 
Bible  itself.  Moses  hesitated  not  to  say  that  the  Lord 
had  called  by  name  Bezaleel,  the  son  of  Uri,  the  son 
of  Hur,  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  and  had  “  filled  him  with 
the  Spirit  of  God,  in  wisdom,  in  understanding,  and 
in  knowledge,  and  in  all  manner  of  workmanship,  and 
to  devise  curious  works  ;  to  work  in  gold  and  in  silver 
and  in  brass,  and  in  the  cutting  cf  stones  to  set  them, 
and  in  carving  of  wood  to  make  any  manner  of  cun¬ 
ning  work.”  Art  is  thus  set  among  the  miraculous 
conceptions,  and  civilization  is  robed  as  a  worshipper 
in  the  outer  court  of  the  Temple.  Stih  we  have  not  a 
man  who  claims,  in  a  peculiar  sense,  ‘.c  have  God’s 
life  in  his  veins.  We  have  seen  God  <  ,  can  we 
see  God  in  blood? 


ECCU  DEUS. 


16 


It  is  important  to  remember,  what  one  would  have 
thought  could  never  have  been  forgotten,  that  there  is 
a  document  written  by  many  scribes,  whfch  professes 
to  be  an  authentic  history  of  a  Man  who  openly 
claimed  to  have  been  begotten  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 
How  can  we  test  the  validity  of  such  a  claim?  W  th- 
out  inquiring  whether  there  are  any  other  ways,  there 
is  certainly  this  simple  and  effectual  plan  :  Is  the  mys¬ 
tery  of  the  life  consistent  with  the  alleged  mystery  of 
the  origin?  Is  the  doctrine  consistent  with  the  birth? 
If  the  man  be  found  to  be  in  perfect  accord  with  the 
mystery,  —  in  proportion,  so  to  speak,  to  it ;  if  there 
be  no  break  in  the  rhythm  between  the  “sayings”  of 
the  teacher  and  the  alleged  revelation  of  the  angel  who 
foretold  his  birth,  then  this  unity  of  mystery  becomes 
itself  an  argument  which  compels  certain  conclusions. 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  phenomena  of  the  birth  and 
the  tone  of  the  doctrine  be  discrepant ;  if  the  cloud  of 
mystery  has  been  employed  to  conceal  defect  of  stat¬ 
ure,  then  the  claim  to  have  been  begotten  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  not  only  unsupported,  but  positively  contra¬ 
dicted.  The  present  inquiry  will  revert  again  and 
again  to  the  consistency  between  the  declared  divinity 
of  the  fatherhood  and  the  teaching  of  Him  who  was 
begotten. 

Omnipotence  covers  the  whole  ground  of  difficulty 
as  to  the  possibility  of  such  a  conception  as  is  claimed 
on  behalf  of  Jesus  Christ.  No  argument,  therefore, 
need  be  started  in  defence  of  that  side  of  the  question. 
Given  the  existence  of  God,  and  the  power  required 
to  bring  out  the  alleged  result  will  be  granted  too ; 
defect  of  power  would  be  defect  of  Godhead,  and 


THE  HOLY  THING. 


*7 


defect  of  Godhead  is  an  absurdity.  Yet  the  entire 
Christ,  so  to  speak,  coming  from  God  without  human 
interposition,  would  have  increased  the  difficulty  of 
his  acceptance  among  men.  We  can  see  how  a  union 
between  the  divine  and  human  would  have  many  ad¬ 
vantages.  If  the  Man  spoke  the  language  of  earth 
with  the  accent  of  heaven  ;  if  he  encouraged  men  by 
his  common  human  nature  to  approach  him,  and  then 
gave  them  assurance  that  the  human  enshrined  the 
divine,  he  would  complete  by  his  power  what  he  had 
begun  by  his  weakness.  This  much  we  can  see  merely 
as  an  argument,  without  conceding  that  the  facts  which 
are  yet  to  be  collated  bear  it  out.  Are  there  any  traces 
of  dualit}^  in  Christ’s  life  and  teaching?  Anything  that 
would  confirm  his  claim  to  have  descended  from 
heaven?  On  the  very  face  of  the  life  there  are  many 
such  traces  ;  and  in  a  more  subtle  and  incidental  way, 
there  are  hints  and  testimonies  which  should  be  scru¬ 
tinized  and  estimated.  We  find  Christ  in  the  midst 
of  a  great  multitude,  and  then  he  goes  no  man  know¬ 
ing  whither ;  he  sends  his  disciples  to  buy  food,  and 
then  tells  them  that  he  has  meat  to  eat  which  they 
know  not  of ;  in  the  very  act  of  talking  to  a  man,  he 
says  that  he  is  in  heaven  ;  "he  is  willing  to  be  identified 
as  the  Son  of  Mary,  yet  never  speaks  of  any  father  but 
God  ;  he  is  known  to  have  had  no  opportunities  of 
technical  learning,  yet  his  wisdom  is  acknowledged  by 
the  doctors  of  the  law  ;  he  submits  to  the  fury  of  the 
ruffian  band,  yet  talks  of  the  legions  of  angels  who 
wait  but  his  prayer.  All  through  we  have  these  dual- 
istic  turns  of  speech  —  one  part  of  the  sentence  plain, 
the  other  haloed  with  strange  glory  or  lost  in  gloom 


i8 


ECCE  DEUS. 


This  is  a  mere  matter  of  fact,  as  found  upon  the  face 
of  the  document  which  professes  to  contain  the  life  of 
Jesus  Christ.  All  this  any  sceptic  would  say,  in  com¬ 
mon  with  any  Christian.  So  far  the  matter  is  literary, 
not  theological.  Still  there  is  an  outline  of  an  argu¬ 
ment  shaping  itself  from  this  view.  The  argument 
of  consistency  takes  its  inception  at  this  point. 

The  so-called  discrepancies  on  matters  of  fact,  which 
some  readers  have  professed  to  find  upon  a  collation 
of  the  fourfold  narrative,  are  less  than  nothing.  His¬ 
tory  can  never  be  written.  It  can  only  be  hinted  at, 
and  most  dimly  outlined  from  the  particular  stand-point 
which  the  historian  has  chosen  to  occupy.  It  is  only 
by  courtesy  that  any  man  can  be  called  an  historian. 
Seldom  do  men  so  flatly  contradict  each  other  as  upon 
points  of  fact.  Incompleteness  marks  all  narrations. 
No  man  can  fully  write  even  his  own  life.  On  re¬ 
viewing  the  sheets  which  were  to  have  told  everything, 
the  autobiographer  is  struck  with  their  reticence  and 
poverty.  Two  processes  are  synchronous  in  the  act  of 
writing,  the  process  of  the  pen,  and  the  process  of  the 
mind  ;  and  because  the  mind  sees  the  subject  in  all  its 
magnitude  and  bearings,  it  considers  itself  rather  than 
the  reader,  who  approaches  the  question  from  an  out¬ 
side  point.  Men  cannot  print  tones,  glances,  sighs,  or 
tears.  The  heart  always  suffers  by  being  translated 
into  speech.  Readers  bring  their  own  methods  of 
reading,  and  often  the  book  which  is  essentially  musi¬ 
cal  is  dishonored  by  a  vitiated  articulation.  The  life 
of  Christ  has  suffered  much  in  the  same  way.  It  suf¬ 
fered  by  being  written  at  all,  and  that  it  has  outlived 
its  suffering  is  one  of  the  firmest  proofs  that  there  is  a 


THE  HOLY  THING. 


*9 


divine  spirit  in  the  earthly  words.  The  life  is  before 
us  in  fragments  only,  and  the  most  that  we  can  do  is  to 
inquire  whether  the  fragments  lie  in  one  direction, 
bear  anv  evidence  of  having  been  cut  out  of  the  same 
rock,  or  testify  to  anything  like  unity  of  purpose. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  Jesus  Christ  had  been 
the  absorbing  theme  of  all  ages  prior  to  his  advent. 
This  circumstance  alone  marks  him  off  from  all  other 
men.  The  hope  of  his  coming  had  kept  society  to¬ 
gether,  preserving  it  from  intellectual  and  moral  anni¬ 
hilation.  When  Christ  came,  long  chapters  of  proph¬ 
ecy  were  to  be  closed  like  gates  through  which  a 
king  or  conqueror  had  passed.  In  Christ  the  prayers 
of  many  ages  were  to  be  answered.  The  prophecies 
respecting  him  were  marked  by  that  strange  dualism 
which  attached  to  his  life :  taken  separately  as  mere 
statements  of  fact  they  are  contradictory,  but  looked  at 
in  the  light  of  the  dual  nature  which  he  claimed  there 
is  immediate  and  perfect  reconciliation.  The  great 
paradoxes  of  prophecy  were  harmonized  in  the  greater 
paradox  of  the  life.  Christ  was  “  a  root  out  of  a  dry 
ground,”  yet  he  was  “  the  flower  of  Jesse  and  the  plant 
of  renown ;  ”  he  was  “  despised  and  rejected  of  men,” 
yet  he  was  “  the  desire  of  all  nations  ;  ”  he  was  “  with¬ 
out  form  and  comeliness,”  yet  he  was  “  the  fairest 
among  ten  thousand,  and  altogether  lovely  ;  ”  he  was 
“the  Child,”  yet  he  was  “the  Ancient  of  Days.” 
Thus  we  are  detained  on  the  same  line  of  mystery. 
Prophecy  and  fulfilment  are  different  phases  of  the 
same  paradox.  The  range  of  evidence  is  thus  ex¬ 
tended,  so  that  any  man  claiming  to  be  Christ  must  be 
brought  for  judgment  to  the  standard  of  prophecy. 


20. 


ECCE  DEUS. 


This  fact  docs  much  to  clear  the  field  of  intruders,  and 
to  narrow  the  ground  of  competition.  Christ  distinct¬ 
ly  threw  himself  upon  prophecy,  and  challenged  scribe 
and  doctor  and  rabbi  to  “  search  the  Scriptures.” 
There  was  no  wish  to  escape  the  test  of  written  predic¬ 
tion,  but  a  determination  to  abide  by  a  careful  search 
of  the  records  which  were  regarded  as  having  been 
received  immediately  from  God.  He  began  at  Moses 
and  all  the  prophets,  and  showed  from  all  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  the  things  concerning  himself.  No  challenge 
could  be  bolder.  He  stood  at  the  close  of  the  great 
prophetic  dispensation  and  said,  “  the  prophets  wrote 
of  me,”  and  looking  forward  to  the  evolutions  of  time 
and  tracing  the  course  of  religious  education  and 
development,  he  commanded  that  his  name  should  be 
taught  in  u  all  nations.”  It  was  not,  then,  on  some 
recondite  and  insignificant  point  that  Christ  claimed 
his  position  in  the  world,  but  on  the  broad  ground  of 
completed  prophecy.  He  was  the  fruit  which  was  to 
be  produced  by  the  roots  of  promise  and  hope  which 
God  had  from  the  beginning  put  into  the  hearts  of 
men.  He  closed  the  troubled  era  of  prophecy,  and 
opened  a  most  gorgeous  apocalypse,  which  took  its 
power  and  glory  entirely  from  his  own  name.  If  any 
challenge  could  have  developed  a  rival,  or  brought 
into  prominence  the  lawful  heir  of  the  heritage  de¬ 
scribed  by  the  prophets,  this  would  have  done  so.  An 
unlearned  man  addressing  the  sages  of  his  time,  who 
held  the  first  literature  of  the  world  —  not  only  un¬ 
learned  but  garbed  as  a  peasant,  poor  in  his  known 
ancestry,  and  unsupported  by  any  visible  authority  — 
said,  ‘  Open  your  scrolls  and  read  the  prediction  of  my 


THE  HOLY  THING. 


21 


person  and  power ;  consult  the  prophets,  and  see  if  I 
bear  not  the  hitherto  mis-read  signs  of  Messiahship  : 
recall  the  music  of  the  minstrels  of  Israel,  and  say 
whether  my  heart  be  not  in  accord  with  their  rhythm.’ 
This  made  it  hard  work  for  an  impostor.  The  empiric 
may  have  brilliant  visions  of  the  future,  but  it  is  peril¬ 
ous  for  him  to  challenge  his  contemporaries  to  go  far 
back  in  search  of  his  ancestral  roots.  The  case  as 
laid  down  in  the  biographic  document  compels  us  to 
go  beyond  Bethlehem  if  we  would  understand  the 
purpose  of  the  birth.  We  have  hardly  turned  the  first 
page  of  the  Bible  until  we  feel  that  a  new  and  marvel¬ 
lous  element  has  been  interjected  into  the  history  of 
man,  which  gives  life  and  tone  and  purpose  to  the 
whole  current  of  earthly  affairs.  The  generations  are 
centralized  in  one  idea.  From  Abraham  to  David, 
from  David  to  the  carrying  away  into  Babylon,  and 
from  Babylon  until  Herod  reigned  in  Judea,  there  is  a 
life  far  below  the  surface.  From  behind  the  prophetic 
veil,  or  through  it,  there  glows  the  image  of  a  man, 
stranger  to  everybody  yet  friendly  to  all.  A  marvel¬ 
lous  image  it  is,  so  indistinct  yet  so  positive  ;  gentle, 
yet  carrying  awful  power,  as  the  summer  cloud  carries 
lightning ;  very  near,  yet  distant  as  the  unseen  God. 
We  feel  this  in  coming  along  the  biblical  line;  feel 
that  almost  at  any  moment  a  Man  might  stand  up  in 
the  very  likeness  and  majesty  of  God  ;  and  a  strange, 
fascinating  spell  binds  the  reader,  until  having  passed 
the  prophecies  he  comes  to  the  Star,  and  the  Virgin, 
and  the  Child.  That  Child  had  been  the  mystery  of 
all  his  reading ;  there ,  in  infant  life,  lay  the  explana¬ 
tion,  itself  a  mystery,  of  all  the  tumultuous  events  and 


22 


ECCE  DEUS. 


hopeful  promises  which  made  up  the  sum  of  prophetic 
history.  We  cannot  understand  the  Child  without  at 
least  recognizing  that  it  is  alleged  that  he  came  i.p 
from  unbeginning  time  to  express,  audibly  and  visibly, 
what  otherwise  could  never  have  been  known  of  God. 

The  opening  chapter  of  the  Gospels  is  more  than  a 
catalogue  of  names.  It  is  the  Old  Testament  sum¬ 
marized  ;  it  is  human  history  in  miniature  ;  an  assem¬ 
bly  of  the  Past  convened  to  witness  the  birth  of  “  the 
holy  thing,  called  the  Son  of  God.”  We  go  through 
the  list  to  the  manger-cradle,  and  the  heart  saddens  at 
more  than  one  point  in  this  illustrious  succession ; 
strange  threads  have  been  woven  into  this  web  ;  —  the 
patriarch  is  here,  and  the  king ;  the  pure  woman  and 
the  dissolute  man  ;  eldest  sons,  and  sons  younger  than 
their  brethren  ;  names  which  make  men  proud  of  man¬ 
hood,  and  names  we  would  “  willingly  let  die.”  Mar¬ 
vellous  pedigree,  indeed !  It  will  surely  be  a  great 
risk  to  attempt  to  get  out  of  this  mass  a  Man  who  will 
stand  firm  in  all  crises.  The  world  has  already  lost 
one  Adam,  may  it  not  lose  another?  In  the  case  of 
the  federal  man  the  reading  was  brief  and  simple :  we 
had  the  Creator  and  the  creature  at  one  sentence ;  we 
moved  at  one  step  from  God  to  Adam.  In  this  second 
case,  we  have  to  proceed  from  Adam  to  God.  In 
Genesis,  the  work  was  easy  ;  in  Matthew,  it  seems  as 
if  through  such  a  mass  we  could  never  find  the  prom¬ 
ised  Life.  We  wonder  at  what  point  of  so  desolate 
a  Horeb  God  will  fix  his  tabernacle  of  fire. 

We  are  bound  to  consider  the  value  of  the  fact  that 
Christ  throws  himself  upon  the  past ;  he  chooses  his 
own  tribunal,  and  it  is  one  to  which  no  Jew  at  least 


THE  HOLY  THING.  3^ 

could  object.  Looking  at  the  subject  generally,  this 
much  is  clear  —  that  the  mystery  of  the  birth  is  in 
keeping  with  the  mystery  of  the  prophecy,  and  it  now 
remains  to  be  seen  whether  the  mystery  of  the  doctrine 
is  in  harmony  with  both.  Whatever  a  fuller  examina¬ 
tion  may  disclose,  there  is  before  us,  even  so  far,  a 
great  breadth  of  homogeneous  mystery,  —  unique,  un¬ 
broken,  unparalleled.  Any  discrepancy  here  would 
vitiate  the  whole  succession.  No  lapse  of  time,  no 
combination  of  circumstances,  can  repair  an  error  at 
this  point.  A  well-known  rule  in  law  will  hold  good 
here  :  “  Quod  initio  vitiosum  est^tractu  temporis  con- 
valescere  non  potest.”  If  Christ  is  to  command  our 
confidence,  he  must  continue  to  be  what  his  claim,  to 
the  prophetic  past,  and  the  alleged  preternatural  con¬ 
ditions  of  his  incarnation,  necessitate.  A  common 
man  cannot  be  tolerated  after  so  uncommon  a  be¬ 
ginning.  If  he  be  only  a  young  man  of  high  and  most 
ambitious  spirit,  he  has  chosen  a  most  perilous  course, 
a  course  which  must  break  down  somewhere.  It  can¬ 
not  be  an  easy  task  hypocritically  to  represent  God 
upon  the  earth,  without  now  and  again  letting  the 
mask  slip  aside.  How  can  the  finite  steadily  carry  the 
Infinite,  when  the  Infinite  is  at  war  with  him?  Christ 
must  be  more  than  a  good  man,  or  worse  than  the 
worst  man.  If  he  be  not  God,  he  is  the  enemy  o*  God. 


24 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  WRITTEN  WORD. 

HERE  is  a  document  which  claims  to  be  authen- 


tic,  and  which  certainly  comes  before  the  world 
as  no  other  book  does.  The  Book  claims  to  have  had 
an  origin  as  mysterious  as  the  birth  of  Christ,  —  com¬ 
bining  the  human  and  divine.  The  hand  is  man’s,  the 
voice  is  God’s.  While  this  Christian  document  is 
before  us,  we  are  not  called  upon  to  write  a  life  of 
Christ,  but  to  interpret  a  life  that  is  written,  or  to  show 
caiise  for  rejecting  the  document.  Our  relation  to  the 
document  should  be  first  ascertained.  Are  we  to 
reserve  the  right  of  discrimination  in  reading  the 
documentary  evidence  ?  If  so,  by  what  law,  or  under 
what  conditions,  is  the  discriminative  faculty  to  be 
regulated  ?  To  receive  the  book  just  as  it  stands  would 
be  simply  an  exercise  of  faith  ;  to  adopt  an  eclectic 
course,  would  involve  the  rendering  of  reasons  for 
abandoning  the  immemorial  orthodoxy  of  the  Church. 

No  doubt  the  Book  is  often  thought  of  in  a  narrow 
and  even  unreasoning  way  by  its  admirers.  Certainly, 
it  is  so  sparing  in  details,  as  apparently  to  leave  much 
of  life  unprovided  for.  It  does  not  occupy  a  tenth  part 
of  the  ground  traversed  by  Plato,  who,  in  connection 
with  many  lofty  speculations,  discoursed  concerning 
lands  and  dwellings,  hunting  and  fishing,  cemeteries, 


THE  WRITTEN  WORD. 


25 


monuments,  and  epitaphs,  family  quarrels  and  injury 
to  property,  rhetoric  and  geometry,  with  a  thousand 
other  subjects.  Compared  with  this  elaborate  treat¬ 
ment  of  nearly  all  questions,  the  statements  of  the 
Christian  writings  are  exceedingly  bald  and  poor ;  yet 
there  may  be  more  in  those  writings  than  in  all  the 
tomes  of  philosophy.  God’s  first  book,  the  book  of 
nature,  apparently  leaves  much  of  life  unprovided  for ; 
yet  as  men  acquire  skill  to  turn  over  the  ponderous 
pages,  they  find  that  every  want  has  been  anticipated. 
Adam  would  hardly  know  the  world  of  which  he  was 
the  first  occupant;  yet  the  primal  forces  and  character¬ 
istics  of  nature  are  just  the  same  as  when  he  kept 
the  garden  of  Eden.  Modern  civilization  can  hardly 
understand  how  men  could  subsist  in  ancient  times, 
yet  the  earth  abideth  forever  without  appendix  or 
supplement.  What  was  wanting,  was  the  faculty  of 
interpretation.  Men  saw  the  water,  but  could  not 
interpret  it  into  steam  ;  they  saw  the  lightning,  but 
mistook  it  for  an  enemy  ;  they  saw  the  sun,  but  could 
not  fully  interpret  all  he  signified  by  the  eloquence  of 
light.  The  human  power  of  interpretation  grows ; 
yet  after  it  has  grown,  it  often  forgets  both  the  process 
and  the  fact.  The  volume  of  nature  is  precisely  to¬ 
day  as  God  published  it ;  but  the  latter  readers  are 
more  sharp-sighted  and  inquisitive  than  the  former. 
Civilization  becomes  wiser,  keener,  more  ambitious 
and  inclusive,  year  by  year.  Men  were  partly  afraid, 
partly  unable,  to  decipher  the  writing  of  nature  ;  they 
read  the  illuminated  title,  and  settled  down  into  con¬ 
tentment  or  indifference  ;  as  if  when  u  God  finished  the 
heavens  and  the  earth,”  he  also  finished  all  the  uses 


2 


26 


ECCE  DEUS. 


and  applications  to  which  future  ages  would  be  dis¬ 
posed  to  put  them. 

The  Christian  writings  abound  in  seminal  ideas ; 
they  are  full  of  beginnings.  The  outlines  are  many, 
but  there  are  no  finished  pictures.  The  value  of  those 
writings  may  be  best  represented  by  the  term  Life . 
We  know  they  are  inspired,  because  they  are  inspiring. 
The  living  man  is  the  best  confirmation  of  the  living 
book.  This  book  is  not  a  plumb-line  by  which  to  test 
the  perpendicularity  of  a  wall ;  it  is  a  living  spirit, 
quickening  and  regulating  spirits  capable  of  illimitable 
development.  With  infinite  appropriateness,  there¬ 
fore,  it  closes  with  an  apocalypse,  —  not  with  a  final 
line,  but  with  prophecies  of  a  future  which  shall 
eclipse  the  splendor  of  all  earlier  light.  The  Old 
Testament  closed  with  a  prophecy;  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  culminates  in  a  revelation.  The  New  Testa¬ 
ment  is  only  the  beginning  of  books ;  not  a  finished 
and  sealed  document,  according  to  popular  notions  of 
finality,  but  the  beginning  of  a  literature  punctuated 
and  paragraphed  by  tears  and  laughter,  by  battle  and 
pestilence,  and  all  the  changes  of  a  tumultuous  yet 
progressive  civilization.  The  Apocalypse  looks  to¬ 
wards  the  future  with  ten  thousand  eager  and  glowing 
eyes.  What  if  that  apocalypse  be  fulfilling  under  our 
own  observation,  and  Christ  be  saying  to  us,  “  Ye 
hypocrites,  ye  can  discern  the  signs  of  the  sky ;  how  is 
it  ye  cannot  discern  the  signs  of  the  times  ”? 

God  is,  so  to  speak,  issuing  ever-enlarging  editions 
of  the  New  Testament — so  rapidly,  indeed,  that  the 
world  itself  can  hardly  contain  the  books.  Though 
we  no  longer  know  Christ  after  the  flesh,  yet  we  walk 


THE  WRITTEN  WORD. 


27 


with  him  in  the  holy  sanctuary  of  the  spirit ;  and  from 
among  the  golden  candlesticks,  he  throws  out  all  the 
rays  by  which  we  read  to-day’s  story  and  to-morrow’s 
apocalypse.  He  is  still  “  the  light  of  the  world,”  and 
still  there  is  about  him  all  the  mystery  of  light.  The 
light  which  reveals  the  landscape,  needs  itself  to  be 
revealed  ;  so  paradoxical  is  nature,  like  nature’s  God, 
that  we  are  dependent  for  revelation  upon  what  is 
itself  a  mystery  !  If  we  have  ceased  to  know  any  of 
the  facts  of  the  Book  —  its  temples,  sacrifices,  wash¬ 
ings,  oblations,  and  miracles  —  it  is  because  we  have 
come  to  a  deeper  sympathy  with  its  spirit.  We  have 
now  transcended  the  use  of  the  grammar  and  the  lexi¬ 
con,  except  for  the  most  rudimentary  and  initial  pur¬ 
poses.  We  are  not  now  entirely  dependent  upon  the 
scribe,  but  by  a  divinely  regulated  instinct  we  know 
the  hand  and  the  voice  of  God.  Our  faith  cannot  be 
broken  down  by  a  misspelt  word  or  a  mistaken  date ; 
the  heart  is  enthroned  as  arbiter,  and  it  knows  the 
“  going  ”  of  the  divine  step. 

No  doubt  the  Book  does  contain  contradictions  more 
or  less  real.  So  does  the  book  of  nature.  The  desert 
contradicts  the  garden  ;  the  storm  contradicts  the  calm  ; 
summer  and  winter  are  utterly  discordant ;  one  plant 
grows  poison,  another  is  impregnated  with  healing 
juices ;  the  savage  beast  and  the  creature  of  gentle 
blood  face  each  other  in  the  contradictory  book  of 
nature.  The  world  is  full  of  contradiction,  and  an 
intolerably  insipid  world  it  would  be  but  for  its  anom¬ 
alies.  Every  man  is  his  own  contradiction.  In  ten 
years,  a  growing  man  will  throw  oft  many  tastes, 
companionships,  and  habits,  which  to-day  are  pleasant 


28 


ECCE  DEUS. 


to  him.  There  is  nothing  without  an  element  of  con¬ 
tradiction  but  death,  and  death  itself  is  the  great  con¬ 
tradiction  of  God.  Human  maxims  and  policies  are 
continually  at  strife.  Out  of  contradiction  comes  educa¬ 
tion.  But  what  is  contradiction?  Not  lying,  neces¬ 
sarily —  not  even  opposition,  absolutely  ;  contradiction 
may  simply  mean  incompleteness,  or  may  arise  from 
ellipsis.  Two  gases  may  mutually  antagonize,  yet 
may  be  held  altogether  by  a  third.  Two  statements 
may  be  discrepant,  until  a  missing  link  is  supplied. 
A  man  may  pursue  two  divergent  courses  of  conduct, 
yet  may  hold  his  integrity  without  a  breach  ;  when 
smitten  on  one  cheek  he  may  turn  the  other,  and  yet 
he  may  rebuke  an  offending  brother  ;  he  may  judge  no 
man,  yet  he  may  refuse  to  cast  his  pearls  before  swine, 
or  give  that  which  is  holy  unto  the  dogs :  this  sup¬ 
posed  contradictoriness  he  has  learned  of  Jesus  Christ, 
who,  though  he  had  not  where  to  lay  his  head,  prom¬ 
ised  to  those  who  followed  him  44  a  hundredfold  more 
in  the  present  world ;  ”  who  reproached  men  for  not 
coming  to  him,  and  then  told  them  that  no  man  came 
unto  him  except  the  Father  drew  him,  and  afterwards 
gave  them  to  understand  that  they  would  be  damned 
if  they  did  not  come  unto  him  ;  who  preached  trust 
concerning  to-morrow,  and  then  told  men  to  make 
unto  themselves  friends  of  the  mammon  of  unright¬ 
eousness. 

All  this  appears  to  be  most  contradictory  and  per¬ 
plexing,  yet  the  same  kind  of  contradiction  marks  the 
whole  life  and  speech  of  men.  One  book  may  be 
many  books,  as  the  New  Testament  is  literally.  Its 
chapters  may  be  addressed  to  different  men,  or  to  the 


THE  WRITTEN  WORD. 


29 


same  men  under  different  circumstances  ;  or  cautionary- 
words  may  be  interposed  in  anticipation  of  possible 
abuse.  One  of  the  New  Testament  writers  states  plain¬ 
ly  that  there  are  in  the  revelation  two  distinct  kinds 
of  spiritual  aliment,  known  respectively  as  “milk” 
and  “  strong  meat ;  ”  one  for  babes,  the  other  for  men. 
When  babes  eat  men’s  food,  what  wonder  if  they  suf¬ 
fer  from  doctrinal  dyspepsia,  and  be  excluded  from  the 
Church  as  heretics?  And  when  men  appropriate  the 
babes’  milk,  what  wonder  that  the  Church  should 
suffer  in  robustness  and  power?  There  is  one  remark¬ 
able  saying  of  Christ’s  which  prepares  us  for  ever 
widening  revelations  of  his  purpose  in  relation  to 
man  :  he  said,  “  I  have  many  things  to  tell  you,  but  ye 
Cannot  bear  them  now :  howbeit  when  he,  the  Spirit 
of  Truth,  is  come,  he  will  lead  you  into  all  truth.” 
Among  the  “  many  things  ”  would  be  explanations  of 
hard  sayings  and  complements  of  unfinished  circles. 
The  plan  of  revelation,  too,  hinted  that  man  should 
become  more  and  more  independent  of  the  scribe,  and 
more  and  more  reliant  upon  the  Spirit.  Writing  is  a 
human  contrivance,  but  thinking  is  a  divine  operation. 
The  scribe  for  the  child,  the  Spirit  for  man.  The 
instructions  of  a  parent  or  schoolmaster  amply  illus¬ 
trate  the  whole  case  alike  as  to  method,  instrument, 
and  result.  At  one  period,  the  child  is  addressed  as 
if  he  were  irresponsible,  and  at  another,  as  if  every 
deed  would  be  brought  under  judgment.  The  school¬ 
master  first  sets  before  the  pupil  the  most  detailed 
methods  of  calculation,  and  insists  upon  every  step 
being  taken ;  afterwards  he  shows  the  pupil  how  to 
abbreviate  the  processes  of  doing  the  very  same  work, 


3° 


ECCE  DEUS. 


and  actually  ridicules  him  if  the  calculation  is  carried 
on  in  the  detailed  and  minute  method  which  at  first 
was  affirmed  to  be  right.  So  a  man  is  educated  in 
proportion  as  he  becomes  able  to  group  and  sum¬ 
marize  details,  and  by  scientific  ellipses  to  pass  rapidly 
towards  results.  All  this  is  part  of  a  great  movement 
from  the  letter  to  the  Spirit,  from  the  symbol  to  the 
life.  This  is  man’s  upward  course  towards  God  ;  a 
deliverance  from  manual  toil,  and  an  entrance  upon 
the  joys  of  a  work  which  never  satiates  the  appetite, 
and  never  wearies  the  faculty.  When  we  are  “  perfect 
as  our  Father  in  heaven  is  perfect,”  we  shall  escape 
the  tedium  of  manual  processes,  and  work  from  the 
spiritual  centre. 

According  to  the  processes,  so  may  be  the  verdicts 
which  men  may  pass  upon  one  another.  The  pupil 
who  is  only  able  to  do  a  sum  in  simple  multiplication 
would  not  be  “  able  to  bear”  a  revelation  respecting  the 
differential  calculus ;  but  in  proportion  as  he  was  able 
to  acquit  himself  well  in  multiplication,  the  teacher 
would  be  justified  in  saying  that  he  was  a  good  scholar, 
and  yet  that  he  knew  nothing;  —  good,  as  far  as  he 
had  gone,  yet  ignorant  in  view  of  the  vast  region  which 
remained  to  be  explored. 

When  Christ  tells  men  to  come  unto  him,  he  is 
addressing  them  in  their  alienated  condition  ;  when  he 
tells  them  that  they  will  not  come  unless  the  Father 
draw  them,  he  is  but  cheering  and  confirming  their 
Christward  desires.  The  statement  is  equivalent  to 
this  :  4 1  am  so  unlike  what  all  men  have  expected,  and 
I  have  commenced  my  work  in  so  unlikely  a  manner, 
that  no  man  could  possibly  come  unto  such  a  poor, 


THE  WRITTEN  WORD. 


31 


i 

friendless,  homeless  man,  except  my  Father  draw  him  ; 
I  present  no  external  charms,  I  can  appeal  to  no  sordid 
motives  ;  if  any  man,  therefore,  feels  the  slightest  draw¬ 
ing  towards  me,  he  may  regard  the  inclination  as  di¬ 
vinely  inspired,  for  no  man  cometh  unto  such  a  person 
as  I  am,  except  the  Father,  which  hath  sent  me,  draw 
him/  In  this  view,  we  have  the  meaning  of  the  ex¬ 
pression,  u  My  Father  worketh  hitherto,  and  I  work.” 
Men  are  moved  by  opposites.  While  there  is  a  false¬ 
hood  in  extremes,  there  is  a  moral  leverage  in  them 
also.  The  servant  is  on  the  road  to  mastery ;  the 
humble  man  is  travelling  to  the  throne ;  decomposi¬ 
tion  is  a  step  towards  reproduction  :  so  this  lowly  out¬ 
cast  Christ,  by  the  very  depth  of  his  humiliation,  lifts 
society  towards  the  altitude  of  heaven.  He  could  not 
have  done  his  work  at  any  of  the  intermediate  points 
of  the  social  scale ;  he  must  go  down  until  there  was 
no  man  below  him  —  until  he  was  despised  and  re¬ 
jected  of  men  ;  so  that  by  an  action  on  his  part  from 
the  depth,  and  a  concurrent  action  on  his  Father’s 
part  from  heaven,  he  could  say,  “  My  Father  worketh 
hitherto,  and  I  work  ;  no  man  cometh  unto  me  except 
the  Father  draw  him.” 

But  is  it  not  declared,  in  other  parts  of  the  Christian 
writings,  that  certain  men  are  foreordained  and  pre¬ 
destinated  to  eternal  life ;  that  God  is  likened  unto  a 
potter,  who  may  fit  one  vessel  unto  honor  and  another 
to  dishonor  ;  that  he  hates  one  man  and  loves  another ; 
that  he  subdues  and  hardens  whom  he  will?  Is  not 
this  contradictory  of  much  that  Christ  said,  and  con¬ 
firmatory  of  other  of  his  sayings?  In  the  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  all  such  sayings,  the  heart  is  to  be  trusted 


32 


ECCE  DEUS. 


before  the  dictionary.  Christ  often  put  the  under¬ 
standing  of  divine  mysteries  upon  the  base  of  an  anal¬ 
ogy  between  fatherly  and  divine  government :  “  If  ye, 
.  .  .  how  much  more  your  Father ?”  This  is  a  method 
of  interpretation  which  refers  decisions  to  the  natural 
and  universal  instincts  of  man,  and  such  a  method  is 
absolutely  essential  where  grammar  and  lexicon  can¬ 
not  disclose  the  inner  meaning  of  language.  Christ 
goes  back  to  the  interpretation  of  consciousness  where 
literal  interpretation  fails.  Tried  by  this  higher  tribu¬ 
nal  of  criticism,  such  meanings  as  have  been  attached 
to  the  idea  of  predestination  simply  cannot  be  correct. 
The  heart  repels  them  ;  nature  shudders  with  horror 
when  they  are  suggested.  The  fatherly  instinct  of  the 
human  race,  to  which  Christ  himself  appealed,  in¬ 
stantly,  without  flutter  or  misgiving,  says,  4  If  God 
calls  all  men,  and  yet  determines  that  only  a  few  shall 
come  ;  if  he  mocks  men  by  offering  gifts  which  he  has 
rendered  them  powerless  to  accept ;  if  he  makes  some 
men  vessels  of  dishonor,  and  then  breaks  them  to 
pieces  because  they  are  not  vessels  of  honor ;  if  he 
can  sit  on  his  judgment-seat,  and  see  men  going  down 
to  hell  because  he  determined  from  all  eternity  that 
they  should  not  go  to  heaven ;  if  when  he  says  4  who¬ 
soever’  he  means  but  a  few,  —  then  let  all  honest 
and  noble  men  leave  him  alone  in  his  hateful  heaven, 
and  go  down  to  hell  in  company  with  poor  injured 
creatures  who  have  deserved  better  at  his  hands.’  This 
is  the  conclusion  of  that  very  instinct  of  parenthood 
which  Christ  himself  challenged  in  the  interest  of  the 
divine  government.  Nowhere  in  the  sacred  writings 
*s  God  represented  as  falling  below  the  promptings  of 


THE  WRITTEN  WORD.  33 

that  holy  instinct,  but  every  where  as  transcending  them 
in  love  and  beneficence  ;  but  the  interpretation  which 
reprobates  any  portion  of  the  human  race  shamefully 
and  cruelly  dishonors  all  that  is  compassionate  and 
generous,  not  to  sa^  all  that  is  equitable  and  just,  in 
t_ie  common  nature  of  men.  Christ’s  new  canon  of 
interpretation  renders  men  independent  of  technical 
criticism,  and  when  the  instinct  upon  which  it  is 
founded  is  entirely  purified,  it  will  render  men  inde¬ 
pendent  of  all  ambiguous  codes.  So  far,  the  parental 
instinct  enables  men  confidently  to  affirm,  that  what¬ 
ever  may  be  the  meaning  of  predestination,  it  cannot 
narrow  the  affections,  or  pervert  the  justice  of  God. 

It  has  been  suggested,  by  the  narrowest  and  hardest 
school  of  theologians,  that  God  may,  as  a  sovereign, 
condemn  anybody  without  being  held  accountable,  or 
without  giving  any  shadow  of  reason  to  his  creatures. 
This,  however,  is  a  notion  which  proceeds  upon  a 
mistaken  apprehension  alike  of  divine  and  human 
nature.  There  is  not  only  a  fallacy,  but  a  falsehood, 
in  the  very  heart  of  such  a  representation.  God  him¬ 
self  cannot  so  act  with  moral  beings.  In  proportion 
as  any  creature  is  endowed  with  the  moral  element,  in 
that  proportion  is  the  sovereignty  of  God  limited  in 
relation  to  that  being  when  debated  questions  arise 
between  the  creature  and  the  Creator.  It  is  by  virtue 
of  the  moral  element  that  man  stands  upon  a  common 
plane  with  God.  Sovereignty  is  a  matter  of  power 
over  forces  and  events  which  do  not  come  within  the 
sphere  of  responsibility.  The  whole  tenor  of  the 
Christian  writings  goes  to  show,  that  as  a  sovereign 
God  could  not  even  save  man ;  his  sovereignty  wa? 

2* 


34 


ECCE  DEUS. 


limited  to  the  method  by  which  salvation  should  bo 
offered  ;  on  all  questions  of  plan,  time,  and  circum¬ 
stances,  God’s  sovereignty  was  absolute,  but  no  man 
could  be  saved  apart  from  the  exercise  of  his  own 
will ;  the  moment  that  force  entered  would  be  the 
moment  of  his  degradation  as  a  man.  If  man  could 
have  been  saved  simply  by  a  volition  of  the  sovereign, 
then  the  humiliation  and  agony  of  Christ  constituted  a 
circumlocution  in  the  divine  government  which  could 
be  accounted  for  only  on  the  ground  of  the  most  wan¬ 
ton  cruelty  on  the  part  of  God.  Salvation  and  repro¬ 
bation  alike  lie  beyond  the  limits  of  sovereignty,  except 
in  such  points  as  have  just  been  named.  It  is  not  our 
business  to  enter  upon  an  interpretation  of  such  pas¬ 
sages  as  are  mistakenly  supposed  to  justify  the  theory 
of  reprobation  ;  but  it  is  our  business  in  thus  canvass¬ 
ing  the  Christian  writings  to  point  out  the  canon  of 
construction  which  Christ  himself  appealed  to  in  illus¬ 
trating  the  immeasurable  bounty  of  God  towards  man. 
Christ  set  up  the  human  parent  as  the  best  represen¬ 
tative  of  the  divine  Father,  and  thereby  elevated  the 
parental  spirit  into  an  interpreter  of  divine  things. 

With  such  real  or  apparent  contradictions  before  us, 
it  becomes  of  the  first  importance  to  determine  what 
is  to  be  done  with  the  Christian  writings?  Are  sophis¬ 
ticated  and  foolhardy  men  to  be  turned  into  them  in¬ 
discriminately,  and  left  without  guidance  as  to  their 
divisions  and  applications?  Is  the  Church  an  author¬ 
ized  and  necessary  interpreter  of  the  written  Word? 
The  determining  distinction  between  a  book  that  is 
true  and  a  book  that  is  false  is,  that  the  true  book,  with 
all  its  ellipses,  brokenness,  and  literal  discrepancies, 


THE  WRITTEN  WORD. 


35 


may  be  trusted  anywhere,  for  the  spirit  that  pervades 
it  will  be  its  strong  defence,  and  it  will  grow  upon  the 
consciousness  of  men  in  proportion  as  they  learn  more 
of  the  brokenness  and  ellipsis  of  life  itself.  The  bad 
book,  on  the  other  hand,  with  all  its  artistic  consis¬ 
tency,  will  cheat  every  promise  it  offers,  and  fail  most 
where  it  is  needed  most.  The  position  which  the 
Christian  writings  have  attained  is  the  best  vindication 
of  their  claim  to  be  the  declarations  which  God  has 
authorized  ;  not  a  position  of  finality,  or  apprehension 
as  to  encroachment,  but  one  of  inspiring  and  self¬ 
spreading  life,  which  encompasses  all  the  wants  of 
man. 

Words  already  cited  from  Christ’s  own  lips  show 
that  we  are  not  living  under  a  dispensation  of  the  book, 
but  under  the  dispensation  of  the  Spirit ;  and  this 
fact  harmonizes  with  the  whole  of  God’s  educational 
method  so  far  as  we  have  discovered  it,  that  method 
being  one  of  continuous  advance  from  the  seen  to  the 
unseen,  from  “  beggarly  elements”  to  all-subduing  life. 
Christ  gave  a  very  partial  revelation  of  himself  in  the- 
days  of  his  flesh.  A  few  strong,  startling,  and  revolu¬ 
tionary  words,  with  a  chastened  and  persuasive  tone 
of  consolation,  sustained  by  many  mighty  works,  was 
all  that  he  gave  men,  with  one  exception  ;  but  that 
exception  was  itself  the  chief  hope  of  the  Church, 
being  nothing  less  than  a  promise  of  the  Spirit  of 
Truth.  That  spirit  was  to  be  an  indwelling  presence 
in  the  Church,  inspiring  and  guiding  the  education 
of  the  soul,  interpreting  the  facts  which  the  visible 
Christ  had  created,  and  leading  into  the  truths  which 
those  facts  dimly  outlined.  Truth  is  always  deeper 


3^ 


ECCE  DEUS. 


than  fact.  Christ  had  built  up,  by  teaching  and  suf¬ 
fering,  the  world’s  greatest,  holiest  fact ;  but  the  Spiiit 
was  promised  to  reveal  the  infinite  truth  which  that 
fact  pointed  out.  The  Christian  writings  without  the 
Christian  Spirit  would  be  a  dead  letter  ;  but  the  Spirit, 
by  daily  interpretation  and  application  of  the  written 
Word,  enlarges  it  so  as  to  extend  it  over  the  whole 
ground  of  life.  Though  this  is  the  age  of  the  Spirit, 
it  is  appropriately  termed  the  Christian  era,  for  the 
Spirit  “takes  of  the  things  of  Christ”  alone;  never 
changes  the  theme,  but  continues  to  unfold  “  the  un¬ 
searchable  riches.”  Christ’s  personal  work  was  rudi¬ 
mentary  in  a  large  sense ;  he  struck  across  the  courses 
of  life  in  a  manner  which  compelled  attention  ;  his 
words  often  flashed  like  lightning,  and  his  step  startled 
like  thunder  at  midnight ;  but  his  work  has  all  the  ap¬ 
pearance  of  a  fragment  about  it.  He  has  many  things  to 
say,  but  forbears  ;  what  men  knew  not  in  his  lifetime, 
they  were  to  know  afterwards ;  his  own  works  were 
to  be  succeeded  by  greater,  because  he  was  going  to 
the  Father.  There  was  much  abruptness  about  this. 
He  had  roused  the  Jewish  mind  without  tranquillizing 
it  again.  He  had  started  new  conceptions,  dismissed 
old  prejudices,  removed  traditional  boundaries,  trou¬ 
bled  the  fountain  of  individual  and  national  life,  yet 
things  were  left  in  a  chaotic  state :  — 

“  Obstabatque  aliis  aliud  :  quia  corpore  in  uno 
Frigida  pugnabant  calidis,  hurr.entia  siccis, 

Mollia  cum  duris,  sine  pondere  habentia  pondus.” 

All  this  was  to  be  settled,  orbed,  illuminated  ;  and 
much  time  would  be  necessary  before  we  could  con 


THE  WRITTEN  WORD. 


37 


tinue  the  poet’s  description  of  the  metamorphosis,  and 
say,  “  Hanc  Deus,  et  melior  litem  Natura  diremit.” 
Christ’s  work,  looked  at  entirely  by  itself,  simply  as  a 
three  years’  ministry,  was  certainly  fragmentary,  though 
perfect  so  far  as  it  went ;  yet  looked  at  in  relation  to 
the  whole  width  of  human  history,  it  was  suggestive, 
not  exhaustive ;  preliminary,  not  final ;  vernal,  not 
autumnal.  Throughout  the  whole  of  his  work  the 
Spirit  expounded  simply  the  doctrines  of  Christ,  not 
any  doctrines  of  his  own :  “  He  shall  not  speak  of 
himself;  but  whatsoever  he  shall  hear,  that  shall  he 
speak ;  and  he  will  show  you  things  to  come.  He 
shall  glorify  me,  for  he  shall  receive  of  mine,  and  shall 
show  it  unto  you.”  Here,  then,  we  have  the  solution 
of  the  difficulty  as  to  the  interpretation  of  the  written 
Word ;  there  is  a  Spirit  whose  particular  function  it  is 
to  reveal  the  historic  Christ  more  plainly,  and  so  to 
keep  pace  with  the  enlarging  capacity  and  power  of 
the  world.  This  Spirit  operates  upon  a  homogeneous 
spirit  in  man  himself,  and  thus  a  mutual  “  witness  ”  is 
established  —  a  witness  which  in  many  cases  tran¬ 
scends  the  difficulties  suggested  by  merely  verbal 
criticism. 


CHAPTER  III. 


THE  WRITTEN  WORD  —  continued. 

E  have  said  that  though  this  is  the  dispensation 


*  V  of  the  Spirit,  it  is  yet  distinctively  the  Christian 
dispensation.  This  circumstance  may  throw  a  side¬ 
light  upon  one  dark  saying  in  the  Christian  writings, 
which  relates  to  the  unpardonable  sin,  the  sin  against 
the  Holy  Ghost.  Christ  taught  that  a  word  spoken, 
against  the  Son  of  Man  would  be  forgiven,  but  that 
a  word  spoken  against  the  Holy  Ghost  would  not  be 
forgiven  ;  by  which  he  probably  meant  that  in  his 
visible  form  there  was  so  much  that  contravened  the 
expectations  of  the  people,  that  they  might,  under  the 
mistaken  guidance  of  their  carnal  feelings,  speak 
against  One  who  had  claimed  kingly  position  under 
a  servant’s  form,  but  that  in  the  course  of  events  he 
would  appeal  not  to  the  eye,  but  to  the  consciousness 
of  men ;  and  that  when  he  came  by  this  higher  min¬ 
istry,  refusal  of  his  appeal  would  place  man  in  an 
unpardonable  state.  The  vital  principle  would  seem 
to  be,  that  when  man  denies  his  own  consciousness,  or 
shuts  himself  up  from  such  influences  as  would  purify 
and  quicken  his  consciousness,  he  cuts  himself  ofl'from 
God,  and  becomes  a  u  son  of  perdition.”  Speaking 
against  the  Holy  Ghost  is  speaking  against  the  higher 
and  final  revelation  of  the  Son  of  Man :  in  this  view 


THE  WRITTEN  WORD. 


39 


Christ’s  position  in  the  Godhead  is  unimpaired  ;  but 
if  a  sin  against  him  were  less  than  a  sin  against  the 
Holy  Ghost,  he  could  no  longer  retain  divine  equality. 
According  to  the  Christian  writings,  we  know  nothing 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  except  in  connection  with  Jesus 
Christ ;  to  speak,  therefore,  against  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
to  speak  against  Jesus  Christ  himself,  not  as  he  ap¬ 
peared  when  he  took  upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant 
(fioQcpty  dovXov ),  but  as  he  was  originally  in  the  form 
of  God  (ev  i-ioQCffj  Oeov).  As  we  have  already  said, 
truth  is  larger  than  fact,  so  the  spiritual  is  larger  than 
the  material,  the  Holy  Spirit  greater  than  any  personal 
manifestation  possibly  could  be.  The  incarnate  Christ 
was  local,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  universal ;  the  fleshly 
Christ  was  a  Jew,  the  Spirit-revealed  Christ  is  the 
brother  of  every  man ;  the  embodied  Truth  walked 
within  certain  geographical  limits,  but  the  spiritual 
Truth  is  unlimited  in  range  and  inexhaustible  in 
power.  The  Apostle  says  that  u  henceforth  we  know 
not  Christ  after  the  flesh  ;  ”  now  he  is  represented  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  still  head  over  all,  though  unseei 
by  men. 

With  this  as  a  start-point,  why  may  not  the  men  of 
to-day  know  Christ  more  thoroughly  than  did  the 
original  disciples  and  apostles?  They  know  everything 
else  better ;  why  make  an  exception  of  the  great  Life 
which  is  giving  such  revelations  of  itself  as  cover  all 
the  enlarging  breadths  of  civilization,  and  fill  plente- 
ously,  even  to  overflow,  the  expanding  capacities  of 
manhood?  The  foremost  man  in  the  original  aposto- 
late  declared  of  himself  that  he  had  “  not  yet  attained,” 
and  exhorted  others  to  u  grow  in  the  knowledge  of  our 


4° 


ECCE  DEUS. 


Lord  Jesus  Christ.”  There  is  no  claim  of  finality  ill 
the  apostolic  epistles.  Everywhere  the  path  of  prog¬ 
ress  is  not  merely  pointed  out,  but  the  most  exciting 
inducements  to  persevere  are  employed  in  the  apostolic 
appeals.  The  riches  of  Christ  are  declared  to  be  “  un¬ 
searchable,”  and  the  peace  of  God  is  said  to  “  pass 
understanding.”  All  the  terms  descriptive  of  Christ, 
and  of  the  courses  of  study  which  may  be  entered  upon 
concerning  him,  suggest  the  impossibility  of  exhaus¬ 
tion,  and  by  implication  suggest  the  greatness  and  rich¬ 
ness  of  human  nature.  Stationariness  in  Christian 
study  is  a  sin  against  the  subject,  and  an  injustice  to 
the  student.  Not  that  fundamental  and  spiritual  truths 
can  be  changed.  Newton  did  not  deny  that  two  and 
two  are  four  when  he  promulgated  the  doctrine  of 
gravitation  ;  nor  did  Coulomb  deny  the  diurnal  rota¬ 
tion  of  the  earth  when  he  improved  the  mariner’s 
compass.  We  go  back  to  the  Book  for  the  primary 
facts  and  outshadowings  of  truth ;  throwing  aside  all 
that  was  local  and  temporary,  we  discover  the  abiding 
root  of  which  came  the  leaves  and  the  fruit  which  are 
for  the  healing  and  sustenance  of  the  nations. 

This  term  “root”  assigns  to  the  Christian  writings 
their  true  position  and  value.  There  is  all  the  differ¬ 
ence  between  the  Christianity  of  the  apostolic  day,  and 
the  developed  Christian  idea  of  the  present  time,  that 
there  is  between  an  acorn  and  an  oak.  The  essential 
nature  is  unchanged,  but  the  least  of  seeds  has  become 
the  greatest  of  trees.  The  Father  is  glorified  when 
the  children  “  bear  much  fruit,”  and  much  fruit  simply 
means  much  Christ.  When  Christ  said  that  he  had 
44  finished  his  work,”  he  spoke  as  an  agriculturist 


THE  WRITTEN  WORD. 


41 


might  do  when  he  had  sown  his  entire  field  with  seed, 
not  as  the  reaper  would  do  when  he  garnered  his 
sheaves.  The  seed  was  small,  the  harvest  is  universal ; 
the  words  were  few,  and  often  broken,  but  they  have 
roused  the  heart  and  shaped  the  course  of  the  world. 
The  tree  is  gigantic  in  stature,  but  it  draws  all  its 
vitality  out  of  the  one  root  which  Christ  planted. 

It  is  certain  that  different  men  sustain  different  re¬ 
lations  to  the  first  principles  of  arithmetic,  geometry, 
or  any  science.  The  skilled  arithmetician  does  not 
require  continually  to  refer  to  tabulated  data  ;  he  could 
carry  on  his  calculations  successfully,  if  all  written 
data  were  destroyed.  They  are  now  in  him  ;  they  are 
part  of  his  intellectual  nature,  so  that  he  employs  them 
with  the  ease  which  comes  of  perfect  familiarity.*  All 
men,  however,  are  not  advanced  arithmeticians  ;  they 
must  have  something  to  work  at,  something  on  which 
the  eye  can  rest,  for  they  feel  safe  in  their  processes 
only  so  far  as  an  appeal  is  made  to  the  eye.  Numbers, 
however,  are  dogmatic ;  they  make  no  accommoda¬ 
tions  ;  they  ignore  all  varieties  of  temperament,  faculty, 
and  circumstances,  and  by  so  much  they  differ  from 
the  spiritual  truths  which  are  the  subject  of  the  Chris¬ 
tian  writings.  Still  the  analogical  point  is  vivid 
enough  for  our  purpose  ;  some  students  are  yet  at  the 
very  beginning,  wondering  at  the  birth,  or  startled  by 
the  works  of  Christ ;  others  have  got  beyond  the  nar¬ 
row  factual  boundary,  and  are  revelling  in  all  spiritual 
luxuriance.  It  would  be  as  impertinent  in  the  arith¬ 
metician  who  has  not  yet  mastered  the  first  four  rules 


*  Ecce  Homo ,  183,  4. 


42 


ECCE  DEUS. 


of  his  art,  to  rail  against  the  learned  algebraist,  as  for 
the  tyros  in  Christian  literature  to  reproach  men  who 
have  the  word  of  Christ  dwelling  in  them  richly, 
having  forgotten  or  left  behind  the  elementary  facts 
of  the  Gospel. 

Any  survey  of  that  portion  of  human  society  com¬ 
prised  within  the  limits  of  modern  civilization  which 
ignored  the  practical  power  of  the  written  Word, 
would  not  only  be  partial,  but  unjust  —  openly  and 
scandalously  wicked,  indeed.  By  influencing  society 
at  the  vital  centre,  it  touches  the  remotest  angles  of  the 
social  idea.  Its  effect  upon  young  life,  upon  all  the 
multitudinous  aspects  of  human  sorrow,  upon  the  de¬ 
velopment  and  consolidation  of  generous  sentiment,  is 
written  in  living  characters  upon  daily  life.  Even  where 
its  dogmatic  form  is  denied,  its  spiritual  results  are 
evident;  and  some,  who  find  a  thousand  difficulties  in 
its  letter,  are  penetrated  and  ennobled  by  its  principles. 
If  a  question  of  comparison  between  this  book  and  any 
other  were  started,  Christ’s  own  standard  of  judgment 
would  best  meet  the  case  ;  looking  forward  to  the  false 
prophets  who  should  seek  to  undo  his  work,  he  said, 

By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them.”  Modern  civil¬ 
ization  should  be  the  field  of  research  on  both  sides. 
Which  book  has  done  most  for  liberty,  justice,  prog¬ 
ress?  Which  book  has  most  persistently  branded, 
defied,  and  threatened  every  form  of  tyranny?  Which 
book  has  spoken  with  the  truest  pathos  to  the  wounded 
and  sorrowing  heart?  Which  book  has  done  most  for 
the  poor  man?  These  inquiries  may  be  put  in  no 
declamatory  spirit,  but  simply  with  a  view  to  the 
discovery  of  facts.  The  test  is  fair.  It  is  marked  by 


THE  WHITTEN  WORD. 


43 


a  high  sense  of  honesty  on  the  part  of  Jesus  Christ, 
lie  adopts  no  method  of  overriding  human  judgment, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  elevates  the  discriminative  faculty 
of  man,  and  in  a  manner  throws  the  responsibility  of 
the  conclusion  upon  men’s  own  common  sense.  This 
if  not  the  plan  of  necromancers,  soothsayers,  and  self- 
elected  prophets :  Christ  appeals  to  his  own  works 
and  the  works  of  others,  asking  the  verdict  of  the 
world  upon  their  respective  claims  to  truth  and  vener¬ 
ation.  There  is  no  cunning  legerdemain,  no  rebuke 
of  human  severity,  in  the  examination,  no  indulgence 
bespoken  on  behalf  of  the  worker :  the  words  and 
works  are  before  you — judge  them,  said  Christ;  and 
u  believe  me  for  the  very  works’  sake.” 

The  important  concession  that  different  men  may 
sustain  different  relations  to  the  Christian  writings, 
may  provoke  an  inquiry,  bearing  upon  some  aspects 
of  church-life  to-day  :  What  of  the  consistency  of 
those  who,  being  far  advanced,  having  come  into  a 
great  liberty  of  faith,  are  still  teachers  in  those  churches 
that  are  yet  only  in  the  rudiments,  and  whose  published 
dogmas  give  no  hope  of  expansion?  The  answer  to 
this  inquiry  cannot  be  difficult.  To  the  end  of  the 
world  churches,  as  promiscuous  aggregates,  must  be 
in  the  rudiments  only,  and  the  teachers  of  such 
churches  must  accommodate  themselves  to  the  ele¬ 
mentary  faith  of  their  hearers.  Often  the  teachers 
will  come  to  know  what  Christ  meant,  when  he  said, 
“  I  have  many  things  to  say  unto  you,  but  ye  cannot 
bear  them  now.”  The  wisest  teachers  are  the  most 
reticent  men.  They  reserve  all  the  deeper  interpreta¬ 
tions,  knowing,  from  a  wide  observation  of  human 


44 


ECCE  DEUS. 


nature,  that  many  who  have  eyes,  see  not,  and  many 
who  have  hearts,  do  not  understand.  Wise  teachers 
will  speak  in  one  set  of  terms  to  the  great  multitude, 
and  in  another  to  the  foremost  men,  when  they  can  go 
aside  and  commune  secretly.  They  will  often  have  to 
hide  their  meaning  under  a  parable,  and  give  explana¬ 
tions  in  an  undertone.  This  is  what  Christ  did.  He 
had  special  interviews  with  his  disciples,  in  which  he 
spoke  of  the  deeper  things  of  his  kingdom ;  and  when 
one  of  his  followers  gave  utterance  to  a  testimony  re¬ 
specting  his  Messiahship,  more  full  and  emphatic  than 
had  yet  been  rendered,  he  pronounced  it  an  immediate 
disclosure  from  heaven.  Again  and  again,  too,  he 
enjoined  silence  upon  his  disciples  as  to  the  higher 
questions  which  had  passed  between  them,  as  if  reve¬ 
lation  was  to  be  regulated  by  time,  and  to-morrow’s 
work  was  not  to  be  dragged  into  to-day’s  service. 
These  graduated  revelations  are  compatible  with  the 
mystery  of  his  own  manifestation  before  men,  and  the 
method  by  which  he  educated  the  disciples.  His 
representatives  are  right  as  they  follow  their  master’s 
course.  No  man  is  bound  to  open  all  his  heart  to 
unappreciative  spectators.  To  the  esoteric  circle  he 
may  fully  reveal  himself,  but  to  the  exoteric  crowd  his 
demeanor  may  be  reserved.  He  knows  that  to  some 
men  he  must  not  tell  the  dream,  until  he  can  also  tell 
the  interpretation  ;  but  that  others  can  help  him  in  the 
changeful  visions  and  tumultuous  upheaving  through 
which  the  soul  passes  into  the  higher  ranges  and 
sweeter  experiences  of  truth. 

It  is  to  be  remarked  that  Jesus  Christ  never  wrote 
anything,  nor  did  he  instruct  his  disciples  to  commit 


THE  WRITTEN  WORD. 


45 


anything  to  writing.  We  have  broken  reports  of 
many  of  his  addresses,  and  very  fragmentary  memo¬ 
randa  of  his  conversations  and  disputes,  but  no  pro¬ 
vision  of  a  literary  kind  seems  to  have  been  made  to 
secure  permanence.  Anything  more  fugitive,  appar¬ 
ently,  than  the  words  and  works  of  Christ,  it  is  impos¬ 
sible  to  find  :  no  hired  scribes  report  the  utterances  or 
chronicle  the  deeds  of  this  wonderful  Man  ;  he  founds 
no  library,  leaves  no  chronicles  to  be  hidden  in  secure 
places,  but  works  out  his  twelve  hours,  and  then  passes 
into  rest.  We  come  to  no  sign  of  permanence,  until 
we  receive  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  he  was  to 
quicken  the  recollection,  as  well  as  to  disclose  further 
aspects  of  the  truth.  The  memory  was  not  to  be  left 
unaided  ;  a  great  light  was  to  be  held  over  all  the  way 
in  which  the  disciples  had  walked,  so  that  they  might 
see  the  minutest  detail,  and  tell  or  write  their  story 
with  all  the  clearness  and  certitude  of  personal  obser¬ 
vation. 

The  written  Word  is  a  repertory  of  facts,  a  revela¬ 
tion  of  doctrines,  and  a  standard  of  appeal  upon  all 
questions  to  which  it  bears  any  relation.  The  only 
interpreter  of  this  Word  is  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  he 
operates  through  the  consciousness  of  the  reader :  it  is 
not  a  Word  arbitrarily  superimposed  upon  man,  but 
a  word  in  harmony  with  all  that  is  divine  in  human 
nature,  and  therefore  having  power  to  carry  the  entire 
conviction  and  sympathy  of  all  who  read  without  pre¬ 
judice.  Upon  these  principles  the  subsequent  inquiry 
will  be  conducted. 


46 


CHAPTER  IV 


THE  INAUGURATION 


HE  measure  of  consciousness  is  the  measure  of 


life.  The  life  of  intelligent  beings  is  not  merely 
a  question  of  years ;  lapse  of  time  may  not  increase 
vitality  ;  life  is  to  be  measured  by  the  sensitiveness 
and  enlightenment  of  consciousness,  so  that  over-con¬ 
sciousness  may  be  one  meaning  of  precocity  or  prema¬ 
turity  of  manhood.  The  first  public  intimation  of 
consciousness  of  his  great  position,  on  the  part  of 
Christ,  if  we  except  the  answer  which  he  made  to  his 
mother,  is  found  in  immediate  connection  with  his 
baptism.  When  John  remonstrated  with  him,  saying, 
“  I  have  need  to  be  baptized  of  thee,  and  comest  thou 
to  me?”  he  answered,  “Suffer  it  to  be  so  now.’ 
There  is  here  clearly  personal  consciousness  of  his 
identity  as  the  long-announced  Man  who  was  to  be  at 
once  Son  and  Lord  of  humankind.  At  that  moment 
he  knew  himself.  The  fire  which  had  been  in  him 
from  the  beginning  shot  up  into  a  bright  flame,  which 
John  saw,  and  which  all  who  were  afar  off'  were  to 
see.  Up  to  that  time,  in  all  probability,  Christ  was 
not  fully  conscious  of  his  Messiahship.  The  poor 
frail  flesh  which  he  had  inherited  from  a  depraved 
race  could  not  have  borne  the  presence  of  full  con¬ 
sciousness  for  thirty  years :  when  it  did  come,  it  con- 


THE  INAUGURATION. 


47 


sumed  him  in  as  many  months.  He  had  but  three 
years  of  avowed  battle.  Such  a  man  could  never  do  his 
work  with  indifference.  Every  moment  was  a  strain 
upon  his  life.  No  man  ever  gave  so  much  to  time,  or 
ever  exacted  so  much  in  return.  To  assume  full  con¬ 
sciousness  on  the  part  of  Christ  during  the  years  of 
his  obscurity  seems  to  separate  him  too  widely  from 
man,  by  reducing  his  humanity  to  a  minimum  ;  but  to 
assume  that  he  u  grew  ”  in  consciousness,  as  he  “  grew 
in  favor  with  God  and  man,”  is  to  bring  him  into 
close  fellowship  with  the  weakest  o^  his  followers. 
We  cannot  afford  to  contract  in  the  least  degree  the 
amplitude  of  Christ’s  manhood  ;  it  is  upon  that  side 
particularly  that  he  belongs  to  us  ;  it  is  as  the  ladder 
reaching  unto  heaven  whereby  men  may  ascend.  By 
so  much  as  he  was  human  he  was  limited,  during  his 
obscurity,  in  consciousness;  byT  so  much  as  he  was 
divine,  his  full  consciousness  overbore  his  humanity. 
All  men  who  have  done  any  notable  work  in  the  world 
have  felt  the  consciousness  of  its  importance,  as  a  fire 
in  the  bones.  They  could  not  languidly  dream  of  it, 
nor  contemplate  it  from  a  hazy  and  mellowing  dis¬ 
tance.  They  have  hasted  unto  the  battle ;  they  have 
said,  “  I  am  straitened  until  it  be  accomplished.”  Such 
a  consciousness  makes  men  die  young.  It  carries  the 
soul  into  an  agony  of  passion.  It  drives  the  blood 
along  the  channels  with  an  urgency  which  greatly  dis¬ 
tresses  nature,  and  strains  the  intellectual  nerve  until 
Ihe  brain  sees  strange  lights,  and  often  trembles  for  its 
own  safety.  Only  men  of  strong  natures  know  what 
is  meant  by  this  lavish  expenditure  of  life  —  this  will¬ 
ingness  to  taste  death  for  every  man. 


48 


ECCE  DEUS. 


Common  life  supplies  the  example  of  consciousness 
in  the  matter  of  mutual  affection.  Wisely  and  merci¬ 
fully,  this  has  been  made  a  matter  of  growth.  Human 
nature  would  be  altogether  overdriven  did  this  con¬ 
sciousness  set  in  fully  during  the  period  of  education 
and  discipline.  From  the  general  kindness  and  sim¬ 
plicity  of  childhood  we  advance  until  the  heart  begins 
to  individualize  its  sentiments,  to  concentrate  its  ener¬ 
gies  ;  by  and  by  there  seems  to  be  but  one  life  in  all 
the  world,  and  then  begins  the  consuming  passion  of 
perfect  love.  Human  lives  grow  gradually  up  to  this 
To  so  great  a  passion  they  must  have  come  by  wisely 
graduated  degrees,  or  it  would  have  rent  and  destroyed 
them.  Still,  all  through  there  has  been  a  conscious¬ 
ness  of  love,  and  in  all  the  simple  trust  and  generosity 
of  young  affection  there  have  been  hints  of  a  great 
possibility,  which  only  time  and  circumstances  could 
develop.  And  this  full  love  means,  if  need  be,  sacri¬ 
fice,  cross,  death  !  All  love  is  ready  for  the  thorns 
and  prepared  for  the  slaughter ;  only  by  so  much  as  it 
is  so  ready  is  it  worthy  of  the  name  of  love.  It  may 
not  be  driven  so  far  along  the  line  as  these  things 
lie,  but  these  things  do  lie  in  the  line  of  pure,  self- 
oblivious  affection.  Man  is  never  so  near  the  cross  as 
when  he  is  in  the  highest  mood  of  love.  To  misan¬ 
thropy,  to  all  narrow-heartedness  and  self-worship, 
the  cross  must  be  the  sum  of  all  horrors ;  they  stand 
on  different  planes,  they  speak  languages  mutually 
unknown  ;  but  the  cross  is  the  very  next  thing  to  love  : 
there  is  but  a  step  between  them  ! 

This  may  illustrate  in  some  degree  the  growth  of 
consciousness  in  Jesus  Christ.  The  three  years  of  his 


THE  INAUGURATION. 


49 


heart-consuming  ministry  were  backed  by  thirty  years 
of  quiet  and  thoughtful  life.  In  such  backing  lies  the 
strength  of  all  great  workers.  Nothing  consumes  like 
love  ;  how  soon,  then,  must  he  be  consumed  who  did 
nothing  but  love  !  The  brevity  of  his  life  must  have 
some  meaning.  Three  years  as  reckoned  by  human 
tables  are  but  a  span ;  there  must  have  been  in  those 
three  years  a  fire  which  burned  fiercely,  and  made 
them  unlike  any  other  three  years  in  all  human 
history. 

This  view  of  Christ’s  consciousness  detracts  in  no 
degree  from  Christ’s  deity  ;  rather  it  throws  into  bolder 
and  more  peculiar  relief  the  elements  which  contra¬ 
distinguished  him  from  all  others,  while  it  retains  him 
amongst  us  as  the  Man  Christ  Jesus.  The  horizon 
seems  gradually  but  surely  to  have  widened,  until  he 
who  u  came  to  his  own  ”  saw  “  all  men  coming  to 
him,”  and  he  who  was  “  lifted  up  ”  drew  all  nations  to 
his  cross.  This  might  have  been,  would  have  been, 
too  much  for  the  youth  in  his  humble  home  at  Naza¬ 
reth.  All  was  getting  in  readiness  for  the  dove  that 
was  to  mark  the  opening  of  the  new  era.  There  was 
to  be  a  descent  upon  him — a  special  point  of  con¬ 
currence  which  was  to  signalize  the  quickening  of 
perfect  consciousness.  It  is  to  that  concurrent  point 
that  we  have  now  to  look. 

Christ  passed,  so  to  speak,  through  two  gates,  the 
one  strait,  the  other  straiter,  respectively  named 
Baptism  and  Temptation.  The  inaugural  processes 
are  characterized  by  the  same  mystery  that  has  over¬ 
shadowed  us  all  along.  They  are  congruous  with  all 
that  we  have  seen  in  the  foretelling  and  in  the  birth. 

3 


5o 


ECCE  DEUS. 


The  duality  remains  without  wrench  or  flaw.  There 
is  an  upward,  there  is  also  a  downward  side.  There 
had  been,  to  us  suddenly  and  most  inexplicably,  a 
brief  dispensation^  interposed  between  Christ  and  his 
work  —  a  dispensation  embodied  in  one  man,  and  that 
man  as  little  like  Christ  as  the  thunder-storm  is  like 
the  calm  which  it  precedes.  Other  dispensations  had 
been  long,  this  was  brief ;  other  prophets  spake,  but 
saw  not ;  this  prophet  baptized  the  very  man  of  whom 
he  prophesied.  Never  did  divine  processes  seem  to 
hurry  upon  one  another  so  urgently  as  about  this  time, 
for  from  the  Inauguration  to  the  Ascension  but  three 
summers  shone  !  The  movement  of  events  never  fal¬ 
tered  for  a  moment.  Jesus  Christ,  as  he  had  been 
the  burden  of  other  dispensations,  was  to  be  the  burden 
of  this.  He  was  to  find  his  name  on  all  other  pages, 
and  now  it  was  to  be  written  on  this  rugged  leaf 
which  tells  the  story  of  the  “  voice  crying  in  the 
wilderness.”  Men  are  valuable  to  us  as  teachers  in 
proportion  as  they  represent  a  great  compass  of  his¬ 
tory.  When  the  aroma  of  all  lands  floats  from  their 
robes,  and  the  accents  of  all  languages  blend  in  their 
speech,  they  have  a  right  to  speak  with  authority. 
The  world’s  Saviour  must  have  come  through  the 
world’s  great  throng  of  hearts ;  he  had  come  through 
Moses,  the  minstrels,  the  prophets,  and  on  His  way 
he  now  takes  up  this  transient  dispensation  of  the 
“  voice.”  Thus  Christ  publicly  identified  himself 
with  the  current  of  divine  purposes  as  shown  in  hu¬ 
man  history.  He  worked  with  man  as  well  as  for 
man,  and  was  thus  the  contemporary  of  all  ages. 
Men  should  study  the  divine  idea  of  each  age,  and 


THE  INAUGURATION.  5 1 

become  intelligent  co-workers  with  God.  Christ’s 
example  shows  that  obedience  to  the  divine  spirit  of 
the  time  ever  brings  fuller  disclosures  and  attestations 
of  the  divine  blessing.  The  heavens  are  opened  to 
every  obedient  man,  and  the  Spirit  of  God  descends 
on  the  last  as  on  the  first.  John’s  baptism  had  gone 
no  farther  than  repentance,  but  Christ,  standing  with 
the  dove  resting  upon  him,  showed  that  there  was  a 
baptism  unto  holiness.  By  John’s  baptism  men  were 
put  into  a  right  relation  to  the  past,  but  as  they  fol¬ 
lowed  Christ  they  were  put  into  a  right  relation  to  the 
future  ;  from  the  negative  condition  of  repentance  they 
passed  to  the  affirmative  attitude  of  holiness.  This  is 
the  culmination  of  human  history.  -We  have  come 
through  man,  servant,  prophet,  messenger,  up  to  Son. 
The  very  nomenclature  is  pregnant  with  sublime 
moral  significance  ;  we  pass  from  “  made  ”  to  “  be¬ 
gotten,”  from  “  upright  ”  to  “  beloved,”  from  the  “  us  ” 
of  the  creating  Trinity  to  the  “  my”  of  the  benignant 
Father,  from  the  “  very  good  ”  of  the  first  Adam  to  the 
“  well-pleased  ”  of  the  second.  “  Obrog  so mv  6  vlog  /uov 
6  dcyanrjTog  d)  evdoxr/Ou.” 

John’s  baptism  looked  towards  repentance :  why 
then  should  Jesus  Christ  undergo  it?  To  prove  his 
human  nature,  his  vital  connection  on  his  mother’s 
side  with  the  whole  human  state,  and  to  supersede  it 
by  fulfilment.  The  world  could  be  taught  only  grad¬ 
ually  ;  it  needed  “water”  before  “fire,”  the  bodily 
lustration  before  the  spiritual  fervor.  The  dispensa¬ 
tions  have  all  worked  from  the  outward  to  the  inward, 
from  the  body  to  the  soul ;  but  Christ  inverted  this 
method,  and  established  the  only  really  spiritual  dis 


52 


ECCE  DEUS. 


pensation.  Did  Christ,  then,  need  to  repent?  No 
more  than  he  needed  to  pray,  or  to  do  any  religious 
exercise  that  men  do.  In  so  far  as  he  was  human,  it 
became  him  to  adopt  the  duties  of  each  dispensation. 

The  place  of  baptism  in  the  Christian  system  is  one 
of  great  simplicity.  Men  like  —  indeed  require  — 
something  objective.  They  cannot  at  one  bound  attain 
that  which  is  purely  spiritual.  Ceremonies,  and  all 
ordinances,  great  or  small,  are  only  accommodations 
to  human  weakness.  Men  require  something  to  fall 
back  upon.  Even  a  recollection  may  come  up  in  the 
soul  with  all  the  gracious  power  of  inspiration  :  the 
simple  fact  that  we  have  done  something,  or  that 
something  has  been  done  for  us,  may  save  us  from 
despair  and  incite  us  to  do  more.  Many  a  soul  that 
has  sunk  from  God  in  higher  things  has  been  stayed  in 
its  sinking  by  coming  against  the  fact  of  its  baptism  in 
its  downward  course.  It  was  well,  therefore,  as  an 
accommodation  to  human  weakness,  to  conjoin  bap¬ 
tism  with  faith  in  framing  the  evangelical  commission. 
If  any  man  wishes  to  undergo  the  “  baptism  unto 
repentance,”  it  may  be  a  question  how  far  he  is  at 
liberty  to  take  a  backward  step  in  the  dispensations ; 
but  to  baptize  children  (who  do  not  need  repentance) 
unto  holiness  is  an  act  infinitely  beautiful  in  simplicity 
and  infinitely  charming  in  pathos.  Baptism  provides 
for  the  lower  and  coarser  part  of  human  nature.  It 
associates  in  a  very  natural  way  fact  with  faith,  some¬ 
thing  done  with  something  yet  to  be  done,  and  thus  it 
is  made  a  help  to  us.  To  make  anything  more 
important  of  it  would  be  to  abet  the  theological  char¬ 
latanry  which  has  kept  back  many  souls  from  the  king¬ 
dom  of  God. 


53 


CHAPTER  V. 

the  inauguration:  the  diabolic  phase. 

P'HERE  was  another  dispensation  to  pass  through 
—  the  dispensation  of  the  devil.  Human  history 
would  not  have  been  what  it  was  but  for  the  diabolic 
element ;  it  was  impossible,  consequently,  for  Jesus 
Christ  to  enter  upon  his  work  without  a  very  demon¬ 
strative  antagonism  at  the  very  beginning.  With  infi¬ 
nite  propriety  does  the  temptation  follow  immediately 
upon  the  baptism.  The  devil  had  been  at  work  before, 
in  persecution  by  means  of  Herod,  obliquely,  so  as  to 
suit  the  less  pronounced  periods  of  the  new  life  ;  but 
as  soon  as  the  Baptism  had  brought  Christ  the  seal 
from  heaven,  and  proclaimed  his  true  relation  to  God 
and  man,  a  more  formal  and  critical  contest  became  a 
necessity.  Christ  could  not  have  passed  to  his  work 
with  a  merely  indirect  recognition  of  the  devil’s  exist¬ 
ence  ;  the  recognition  must  be  full,  emphatic,  solemn. 
Any  man  who  proposed  to  himself  the  fabrication  of 
the  story  of  the  wilderness,  entered  upon  a  most  peril¬ 
ous  task.  It  must  be  difficult  for  human  genius  to 
contrive  a  consistent  devil,  or  to  maintain  in  dialogue 
the  conscious  power  of  God.  On  the  other  hand,  who 
could  historically  write  the  account  of  the  temptation? 
No  one  was  present  with  pen  and  ink.  No  one  over¬ 
heard  the  interlocution.  How,  then,  does  it  find  a 


54 


ECCE  DEUS. 


place  in  history?  It  must  have  been  outlined  by 
Christ  himself  in  conversation  with  his  disciples. 
Many  a  time  the  conversation  would  turn  upon  the 
devil  and  his  kingdom,  for  the  Christian  monarchy 
was  set  up  to  put  the  diabolic  monarchy  down.  When 
the  conversation  so  turned,  nothing  would  be  more 
natural  than  that  Christ  should  relate  his  experience 
in  the  wilderness,  and  found  upon  it  many  of  his  most 
practical  directions.  The  account  is  obviously  frag¬ 
mentary,  and  in  one  or  two  points  must  be  read 
figuratively,  not  literally.  Temptations  cannot  be 
written.  The  process  is  not  conducted  with  all  the 
precision  of  a  Socratic  dialogue.  The  heart  can  give 
but  a  meagre  account  of  its  spiritual  conflicts ;  its 
wounds  cannot  be  translated ;  its  triumphs  are  too 
subtle  for  words.  At  the  same  time  all  Christian 
hearts  have,  according  to  their  capacity  and  suscep¬ 
tibility,  gone  through  the  very  course  of  temptation 
given  in  the  New  Testament  narrative.  All  such 
hearts  have  been  tempted  to  make  bread  in  an  illegit¬ 
imate  and  forbidden  manner ;  have  been  tempted  to 
risk  their  lives  and  their  destinies  presumptuously ; 
and  also  tempted  to  offer  the  homage  of  the  soul  as 
the  price  of  secular  aggrandizement.  Upon  such 
points  as  these  the  whole  world  has  become  a  wilder¬ 
ness  of  temptation  or  a  wilderness  of  discipline.  To¬ 
day  the  great  strife  of  the  world  is  proceeding  upon 
these  very  issues,  —  Bread,  Desperation,  Sovereignty. 
Man  has  been  victimized  by  the  sophism  that  it  is 
necessary  for  him  to  live ,  and  therefore  necessary  that 
he  should  make  bread,  either  legitimately  or  dis¬ 
honestly  ;  but  Christ  alone  broke  through  this  sophism 


THE  INAUGURATION  :  THE  DIABOLIC  PHASE.  55 

by  showing  from  what  the  true  life  of  man  is  derived, 
that  there  is  something  deeper  than  the  sensations  of 
the  body,  which  cannot  be  a  guest  at  men’s  tables,  but 
must  feed  on  the  very  truth  of  God.  Man  has  been 
also  tempted  to  risks  that  are  unlawful,  especially  on 
the  pretence  that  he  was  but  acting  up  to  his  faith  ; 
forgetting  that  there  is  a  limit  to  human  liberty,  and 
that  a  narrow  boundary  separates  trust  and  presump¬ 
tion.  Man  has  further  been  tempted  to  bid  for  great 
dominion,  and  in  some  cases  under  the  glare  of  the 
delusion  he  has  bent  his  knee  before  the  deceiver.  So 
man  himself  has  passed  through  the  series  of  tempta¬ 
tions  recorded  in  connection  with  the  name  of  Christ, 
and  can  understand  what  is  meant  by  Christ  having 
been  u  tempted  in  all  points  like  unto  his  brethren,” 
showing  that  Christ  took  up  the  very  temptations 
which  had  been  plaguing  the  world  for  thousands  of 
years,  and  did  not  introduce  a  new  and  unfamiliar 
class  of  temptations  which  had  never  troubled  the  life 
of  the  world,  and  which,  even  when  overcome,  left 
the  common  temptations  of  society  untouched.  This 
view  does  two  things:  first,  it  shows  the  barrenness 
and  utter  poverty  of  the  devil’s  resources ;  stripped  of 
all  that  is  accidental,  merely  decorative  or  diplomatic, 
they  really  consist  of  one  thing,  viz  :  the  exaggeration 
and  idolatry  of  self;  and  second,  this  view  brings 
Jesus  Christ  into  very  close  and  tender  sympathy  with 
every  tempted  man.  They  stand  on  the  same  line ; 
they  bear  the  same  tremendous  shocks  ;  they  war  with 
the  same  weapons.  Did  Christ,  then,  merely  suffer  in 
the  wilderness  as  any  other  man  has  done  ?  Suffering 
is  a  question  of  nature.  The  educated  man  suffers 


56 


ECCE  DEUS. 


more  than  the  uneducated  man:  the  poet  probably 
suffers  more  than  the  mathematician  ;  the  command¬ 
ing  officer  suffers  more  in  a  defeat  than  the  common 
soldier.  The  more  life,  the  more  suffering  ;  the  billows 
of  sorrow  being  in  proportion  to  the  volume  of  our 
manhood.  Now  Jesus  Christ  was  not  merely  a  man, 
he  was  Man;  and  by  the  very  compass  of  his  man¬ 
hood  he  suffered  more  than  any  mortal  can  endure. 
The  storm  may  pass  as  fiercely  over  the  shallow  lake 
as  over  the  Atlantic,  but  by  its  very  volume  the  latter 
is  more  terribly  shaken.  No  other  man  had  come 
with  Christ’s  ideas ;  in  no  other  man  was  the  element 
of  self  so  entirely  abnegated  ;  no  other  man  had  offered 
such  opposition  to  diabolic  rule :  all  these  circum¬ 
stances  combine  to  render  Christ’s  temptation  unique, 
yet  not  one  of  them  puts  Christ  so  far  away  as  to  pre¬ 
vent  us  finding  in  his  temptation  unfailing  solace  and 
strength. 

The  temptation  of  the  Beloved  Son  is  important  as 
an  historic  fact,  but  infinitely  more  important  as  a  doc¬ 
trine  giving  hope  to  men  who  are  tempted  by  the  devil 
to  some  degree  of  the  same  enormities.  Could  Christ 
have  been  overthrown?  Most  certainly  ;  otherwise  his 
temptation  has  no  message  to  man,  except  one  of  de¬ 
spair.  Whatever  is  less  than  infinite,  is  temptible  and 
peccable ;  Christ’s  humanity  was  less  than  infinite, 
therefore  his  humanity  might  have  been  overthrown. 
Sympathy  can  proceed  only  from  community  of  situa¬ 
tion.  To  say  that  Christ  could  not  have  been  success¬ 
fully  tempted,  and  that  the  result  of  his  temptation 

• 

should  comfort  men,  is  equal  to  saying  that,  because 
no  man  can  blow  out  the  sun,  therefore  no  man  can 


tiie  inauguration:  tiie  diaboeic,  phase.  57 

blow  out  a  taper.  The  record  of  the  temptation  is  an 
act  of  cruelty,  if  it  have  no  bearing  on  human  strife ; 
but  an  analysis  of  the  temptation  shows  that  the 
methods  of  assault  are  fundamentally  the  same,  and 
ihat  every  answer  is  available  for  every  tempted  man. 

When,  however,  it  is  affirmed  that  Christ  could  have 
been  successfully  tempted,  the  words  require  to  be  care¬ 
fully  considered.  The  possibility  relates,  of  course,  en¬ 
tirely  to  the  human  side  of  his  nature.  So  far  as  the 
weakness  of  the  flesh  was  concerned,  Christ  was  open 
to  all  the  results  of  diabolic  seduction  ;  but  there  was 
in  him  that  spirit  of  perfect  trust  in  God,  which  ren¬ 
dered  the  fiercest  assaults  of  the  enemy  simply  futile. 
He  did  not  come  upon  the  tempter  as  Eve  did  ;  she 
was  necessarily  inexperienced  —  she  could  not  foresee 
the  result  of  disobedience  ;  Christ  had  the  history  of 
the  world  as  a  living  illustration  of  the  course  of 
diabolic  policy  immediately  before  him,  so  that  he 
could  give  the  lie  to  every  diabolic  suggestion. 

A  common  illustration  will  simplify  the  idea  that  the 
spirit  of  perfect  trust  which  was  in  Christ,  taken  in 
connection  with  the  results  of  sin  which  abounded 
everywhere,  rendered  temptation  utterly  futile.  Take 
the  most  respected  man  of  a  given  neighborhood  — 
a  man  whose  honor  and  integrity  are  known  to  be 
above  suspicion,  and  it  may  be  affirmed  of  that  man, 
that  it  is  impossible  to  persuade  him  to  defraud  his 
neighbor  of  a  penny.  The  idea  of  his  doing  so  would 
be  regarded  by  those  who  knew  him  best  as  an  impu¬ 
tation  not  to  be  tolerated  for  a  moment.  But  why? 
The  man  is  only  human,  like  other  men,  why  then  this 
indignation  at  the  idea  of  fraud?  Simply  because  the 

3* 


ECCE  DEUS. 


58 

spirit  of  honesty  within  him  is  too  strong  to  succumb 
to  such  a  temptation.  But  increase  the  force  of  the 
temptation  ;  raise  it  from  a  paltry  penny  to  ten  thou¬ 
sand  guineas,  and  multiply  the  ten  by  ten,  and  add  the 
assurance  that  no  human  being  can  ever  be  cognizant 
of  the  fraudulent  deed,  and  if  that  amount  will  not 
reach  to  his  full  moral  stature,  add  to  it  according  to 
his  integrity ;  and  thus  a  tremendous  rival  force  may 
be  set  up,  with  which  the  man  may  find  it  difficult  or 
impossible  to  contend.  In  the  case  of  Christ,  the  devil 
pursued  this  climacteric  course,  rising  from  the  mere 
satisfaction  of  hunger  to  the  rule  of  all  kingdoms 
Still  the  Messianic  spirit  towered  fin*  beyond  the  pre 
tentious  offer.  The  deceiver  could  not  attain  the  over 
shadowing  height ;  other  men  had  been  measurable 
and  conquerable,  but  this  man  was  of  gigantic  stature-  • 
and  his  shield  was  impenetrable.  While,  then,  look 
ing  strictly  to  the  human  side  of  Christ,  it  may  be 
affirmed  that  he  was  exposed  to  all  the  risks  of  tempta 
tion,  it  may  be  affirmed  with  equal  truth,  looking  af 
his  spirit,  that  it  was  impossible  that  Christ  could  fall. 
There  is  a  great  truth  in  each  representation,  and  the 
combination  of  the  two  can  alone  give  us  the  reality 
of  the  case.  One  fact  will  show  that  the  temptation 
of  Christ  was  designed  to  be  a  source  of  strength  to 
every  tempted  man :  all  the  temptations  are  such  aa 
might  have  been  addressed  to  a  merely  human  being 
—  not  one  of  them  was  adapted  to  a  being  believed  to 
be  divine.  With  a  Socinian  creed,  the  de vil  adopted 
a  Socinian  policy.  He  assailed  the  man  ;  he  aimed  no 
weapon  at  the  God.  He  regarded  him,  indeed,  as  a 
man  of  great  name  and  bold  pretension,  but  a  man 


THE  INAUGURATION  :  TIIE  DIABOLIC  PHASE.  59 

still.  The  first  temptation  has  an  air  of  benevolence 
about  it,  —  “  Thou  art  hungry  :  make  bread  !  ”  The 
second  is  marked  by  a  spirit  of  inquiry  as  to  the  reality 
of  creeds,  —  “  It  is  written  :  prove  the  truth  of  the 
writing !  ”  The  third  is  an  appeal  to  the  senses,  — 
“All  these  will  I  give  thee!”  Through  this  course 
we  ourselves  have  been  taken,  and  it  would  be  a  poor 
consolation  to  know  that  there  was  no  point  of  sym¬ 
pathy  between  Christ  and  our  souls. 

I11  further  elucidation  of  Christ’s  spirit,  showing 
that  it  represented  not  only  innocence  but  holiness,  not 
a  negative  but  an  affirmative  condition  of  soul,  one  re¬ 
markable  circumstance  should  be  noted.  Eve  and 
Christ  returned  precisely  the  same  answer  to  Satanic 
suggestion.  Eve  referred  to  the  word  of  God,  so  did 
Christ ;  Eve  answered,  u  God  hath  said,”  Christ  an¬ 
swered,  “It  is  written;”  yet  Eve  fell,  and  Christ 
stood.  The  strength,  therefore,  was  not  in  the  mere 
answer  as  containing  a  piece  of  information.  Life  is 
greater  than  intelligence  ;  sympathy  is  profounder  than 
obedience.  The  world’s  first  woman  was  necessarily 
inexperienced  ;  she  had  no  historic  footprints  to  go  by  ; 
she  knew  her  instructions,  but  they  were  set  on  no 
background  of  guilt  and  sorrow.  The  world’s  second 
Man  was  rich  in  history ;  he  had  no  formal  instruc¬ 
tions,  but  brought  with  him  the  spirit  of  all  caution 
and  strength.  The  divine  word  is  potential  only  as  it 
represents  the  full  consent  of  man’s  mind,  soul,  heart, 
and  will.  Eve  gave  her  answer  simply  without  doubt ; 
Christ  gave  his  with  perfect  faith. 

The  temptation  was  a  movement  towards  humanity 
on  the  part  ol  Christ.  Men  had  lost  sight  of  him  for 


6o 


ECCE  DEUS. 


something  like  thirty  years,  with  one  exception  He 
was  neai  them  at  his  birth,  with  all  the  promise  and 
hopefulness  of  morning  twilight;  and  again  he  ap¬ 
proached  society  when  he  was  twelve  years  old  ;  but 
now  that  he  is  in  the  wilderness,  he  seems  nearer  to 
human  hearts  than  before.  From  the  baptism  he  went 
up,  as  it  were,  towards  God  as  the  “  Beloved  Son,” 
but  from  the  temptation,  he  comes  earthward  jl-:  ’.he 
Son  of  man.  The  Jordan  lies  on  the  heavenly,  the 
wilderness  on  the  earthly  side  of  Christ.  There  is  a 
“  river,”  but  there  is  no  wilderness  in  heaven. 

The  particular  manner  of  the  inauguration,  so  far 
as  its  demonstrativeness  is  concerned,  seems  to  have 
been  required  by  the  protracted  seclusion  of  Jesus 
Christ.  It  is  not  a  little  perplexing  that  one  whose 
birth  had  been  attended  by  such  marked,  such  unpar¬ 
alleled  circumstances,  could  have  been  allowed  by  his 
contemporaries  to  subside  into  obscurity  for  a  consid¬ 
erable  succession  of  years.  In  some  respects  it  seems 
impossible.  Judging  by  the  passionate  urgency  which 
marks  every  great  movement  of  to-day,  we  should 
think  that  Nazareth  would  have  been  watched  day 
and  night ;  that  all  the  learning  and  religion  of  the 
land  would  have  adjourned  thither,  and  impatiently 
demanded  a  decision  respecting  the  destiny  of  the 
Child.  Instead  of  this,  the  most  marvellous  birth  of 
the  ages  is  allowed  to  fall  into  partial,  if  not  into 
total  oblivion.  The  demonstration  attending  the  birth 
makes  this  subsidence  the  more  remarkable.  The  son<r 

o 

of  angels,  the  homage  of  wise  men,  the  sensation  in 
Jerusalem,  all  increase  the  wonder.  It  is  to  be  borne 
in  mind,  however,  that  by  many  the  sword  of  Herod 


the  inauguration:  the  diabolic  phase.  6i 


was  supposed  to  have  taken  away  the  Child  of  the 
Star  and  the  Song.  When  that  Child  reappeared  at 
the  age  of  twelve  years,  he  did  so  without  any  of  those 
demonstrations  which  had  accompanied  the  birth, 
simply  exciting  attention  by  his  unusual  sagacity.  It 
was  a  long  way,  too,  in  those  days  from  Bethlehem  to 
Nazareth  ;  and  in  that  contemned  Galilean  town,  the 
ear  of  corn  could  die  before  reappearing  in  its  multi¬ 
plied  form.  Strange,  tumultuous  years  they  must  have 
been  for  the  mother,  though.  Her  heart  must  have 
been  darkly  overshadowed  by  that  mysterious  Son  of 
hers,  and  must  have  sunk  under  the  great  burden  of 
its  own  reflections,  had  not  u  the  power  of  the  High¬ 
est  ”  been  her  continual  defence  and  rest. 

This  long  seclusion  seemed  to  require  an  inaugura¬ 
tion  corresponding,  in  some  degree,  with  the  annun¬ 
ciation.  Instead  of  the  Star  we  see  the  Dove  ;  instead 
of  the  Song,  we  hear  the  Voice  from  heaven  ;  and  in¬ 
stead  of  the  flight  into  Egypt,  we  have  the  withdrawal 
into  the  wilderness.  At  this  point,  we  get  another 
glance  at  the  unity  of  the  double  mystery  of  Christ. 
He  took  the  dispensations  as  he  found  them  ;  he  un¬ 
derwent  circumcision,  and  gave  to  the  Lord  a  pair  of 
turtle-doves  and  two  young  pigeons  ;  long  years  after¬ 
wards,  he  found  God’s  purpose  set  forth  in  a  particular 
baptism,  and  openly  identified  himself  with  it ;  then 
he  was  taken  into  the  wilderness,  to  be  tempted  of  the 
devil.  Why  hesitate  to  say  so  plainly,  and  believe  so 
literally?  A  man  who  had  not  been  tempted  would 
have  been  of  no  use  to  men.  He  would  have  been  a 
stranger  to  their  mental  history  ;  only  able  to  talk  at, 
but  nosier  to  their  spirit:  all  his  words,  refined  and 


62 


ECCE  DEUS. 


lustrous,  would  never  have  penetrated  into  the  deep 
rips  and  wounds  of  human  nature.  There  is  no  need 
to  gloss  the  bare  and  startling  announcement  that 
Christ  was  led  up  of  the  Spirit  into  the  wilderness,  to 
be  tempted  of  the  devil.  It  is  better  to  put  the  fact 
thus  boldly  before  men.  The  weary,  aching  heart 
cannot  feed  on  metaphors,  or  the  cunning  sleights  of 
rhetoric ;  give  it  a  Christ  tempted,  yet  victorious,  and 
the  fact  that  one  man  has  overcome  the  devil  will  sus¬ 
tain  its  own  endeavors  in  the  same  daily  conflict. 

The  scene  in  the  wilderness  illustrates  the  risks  of 
solitude.  The  self-diabolizing  spirit  of  man  always 
reveals  itself  to  the  lonely  contemplatist,  either  in 
moments  of  vacancy,  or  under  the  stress  of  spiritual 
crises.  Eve  was  tempted  when  she  was  alone ;  the 
suicide  succumbs  when  he  is  pushed  into  the  last  de¬ 
gree  of  loneliness;  the  darkest  thoughts  of  the  conspir¬ 
ator  becloud  the  mind  when  he  has  most  deeply  cut 
the  social  bond :  when  man  is  alone,  he  loses  the 
check  of  comparison  with  others ;  he  miscalculates 
his  force,  and  deems  too  little  of  the  antagonisms 
which  that  force  may  excite.  All  these  are  among 
the  risks  of  solitude.  The  solitary  man  either  degen¬ 
erates  into  a  misanthrope,  and  the  tool  of  the  diabo- 
lizing  spirit,  or  he  enriches  and  strengthens  his  life  by 
reverent  and  subduing  contemplation.  Wherever  we 
can  descry  the  course  of  the  diabolic  spirit,  we  are  left 
inno  doubt  as  to  the  value  which  he  sets  upon  the  in¬ 
dividual  heart.  He  teaches  a  new  doctrine  in  num¬ 
bers.  We  calculate  majorities  by  units ;  he  teaches 
that  the  unit  itself  may  be  the  majority ;  he  counts  by 
much ,  not  many ,  his  majorities  being  measured  not  by 


THE  INAUGURATION  :  THE  DIABOLIC  PHASE.  ,  6^ 

numbers,  but  by  force.  The  minority  may  be  th*> 
majority.  Caesar  is  more  than  all  Caesar’s  legions. 
When  Eve  was  overthrown,  a  world  was  conquered. 
The  persons  whom  the  devil  has  elected  to  high 
offices  in  his  government,  have  be£.n  strongly  individ¬ 
ual  in  character  and  faculty;  from  Eve  to  Judas,  the 
succession  has  been  marked  by  the  coolest  subtlety  or 
the  intensest  passion.  As  the  devil  won  a  world  when 
he  won  Eve,  he  knew  that  he  would  have  won  it  twice, 
and  forever  kept  it,  if  he  had  subdued  her  Son. 

But  the  risks  of  solitude,  it  should  be  added,  are  in 
proportion  to  its  value.  Man  cannot  reach  his  full 
stature  in  the  market-place,  or  in  association  with  the 
excited  throng.  The  wilderness  must  form  the  coun¬ 
terpart  of  the  thoroughfare,  —  great  breadths  of  con¬ 
templation  alternating  with  great  breadths  of  service. 
This  was  Christ’s  example,  illustrated  most  vividly  at 
one  exciting  point  in  his  history :  the  disciples  of 
John  went  and  told  Jesus  that  their  master  had  been 
murdered  by  Herod ;  the  intelligence  seems  to  have 
shocked  his  spirit  with  a  terrible  disappointment ;  sick¬ 
ened  and  saddened  by  this  tale  of  blood,  “  he  departed 
thence  by  ship  into  a  desert  place  apart,”  as  if  to 
avenge  the  murder  upon  the  diabolic  instigator,  or  to 
weep  great  drops  of  blood  ;  yet  we  are  told  in  the 
very  next  verse,  that  “Jesus  went  forth  and  saw  a 
great  multitude,  and  was  moved  with  compassion  to¬ 
wards  them,  and  healed  their  sick.”  These  were  the 
hemispheres  of  his  life,  —  secrecy  and  publicity  ;  pray¬ 
ing  in  the  desert,  and  healing  in  the  city;  weeping 
alone,  and  working  in  the  presence  of  many  witnesses. 
The  desert  was  to  Christ  a  holy  place,  after  the  initial 


ECCE  DEUS. 


64  • 

battle  ;  the  sight  of  the  old  footmarks  inspired  his  de¬ 
pressed  heart ;  the  echoes  of  the  victorious  quotations 
became  as  voices  of  promise.  In  the  first  instance,  he 
was  led  up  of  the  Spirit  to  be  tempted ;  often  after¬ 
wards  he  was  led  up  of  the  Spirit  into  the  same 
wilderness  to  be  comforted.  So  all  through  human 
life :  recollection  'becomes  inspiration,  and  Memory 
speaks  to  the  soul  like  a  prophet  of  the  Lord. 

The  answers  which  Christ  returned  to  the  tempter 
illustrate  the  intensely  spiritual  nature  of  the  tempta¬ 
tion,  and  show  how  man  is  dependent  upon  an  ob¬ 
jective  revelation  in  seasons  of  trial.  Not  one  answer 
was  returned  from  within  ;  the  soul  looked  out  of  it¬ 
self  for  defence,  yet  gave  the  answers  with  the  firm 
emphasis  of  perfect  trust,  as  if  their  doctrine  carried 
the  entire  conviction  of  the  speaker.  Man  cannot  do 
things  simply  because  they  are  “  written.”  The  action 
comes  from  the  harmony  which  is  established  between 
what  is  felt,  and  what  is  “written;”  consciousness 
and  revelation  must  be  at  one,  and  then  the  citation  of 
written  authority  is  not  a  sign  of  personal  weakness, 
but  a  token  of  vital  fellowship  with  God.  If  merely 
to  say  “  it  is  written  ”  were  enough,  then  no  man  would 
fall ;  the  point  of  failure  is  where  the  written  Word 
and  the  life  of  the  soul  are  not  entirely  at  one.  Men 
are  not  kept  by  revelation,  but  by  the  acceptance  of 
the  heart  of  that  which  is  revealed.  Yet  objective 
revelation  is  of  the  highest  consequence  in  human  life. 
It  stays  the  soul  in  special  conflicts,  and  as  men  may 
feel  stronger  and  safer  in  company  than  in  loneliness, 
so  the  heart  feels  braver  by  the  very  presence  of  a 
written  Word.  A  subjective  revelation  might  have 


the  inauguration:  the  diabolic  phase.  65 

been  the  only  revelation  given,  and  might  have  been 
enough  under  primary  conditions  ;  but  by  so  much  as 
man  fell  from  those  conditions,  he  required  a  book  as 
well  as  a  conscience.  Nor  does  Christ’s  example 
militate  against  this  position,  for  throughout  he  com¬ 
bated  the  diabolic  spirit  as  a  man;  nowhere  did  he 
launch  the  lightnings  of  his  proper  divinity  in  reply, 
but  ever  made  the  simple  answer  of  a  man  who  had 
read  the  revelation  of  God.  Other  courses  were  open 
to  Christ.  He  could  have  recalled  the  tempter’s  own 
memories  of  heaven,  the  ancient  sentence,  the  terrible 
deposition ;  the  indwelling  God  might  have  shone 
through  the  human  eyes,  and  abashed  the  Tempter  by 
the  light  from  which  he  had  been  expelled  ;  yet  all 
this  side  of  defence  is  untouched,  and  the  tempted  man 
shelters  himself  behind  the  rampart  of  the  written 
Word.  Every  assault  is  encountered  upon  the  human 
side  :  to  have  met  the  Tempter  otherwise,  would  have 
been  to  deflect  from  the  only  course  possible  to  man, 
and  to  have  divested  the  wilderness  period  of  the 
Incarnation  of  all  the  features  which  endear  it  to 
probationary  manhood. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


THE  MIGHTY  WORKS. 

PIE  baptized  and  tempted  Son  was  now  pre- 


pared  for  his  mission.  There  is  a  very  striking 
and  suggestive  consistency  between  the  preparation 
and  the  work.  So  much  power  had  been  held  in 
restraint  for  so  long  a  time,  that  it  was  not  to  be  won¬ 
dered  at  that  on  its  liberation  u  mighty  deeds  should 
show  forth  themselves  in  him.”  One  of  his  biogra¬ 
phers,  as  if  overpowered  by  the  number  and  splendor 
of  his  miracles,  instead  of  introducing  detailed  state¬ 
ments  of  supernatural  cures,  groups  in  one  impressive 
mass  the  beneficent  works  of  many  days ;  and  the 
grouping  is  the  more  remarkable  as  coming  at  the 
very  beginning  rather  than  at  the  end  of  the  narrative. 
If  the  miraculous  mission  had  been  opened  leisurely, 
with  a  cure  here,  and  a  storm  quieted  there,  the  nar¬ 
rator  would  probably  have  given  detailed  accounts  on 
his  first  pages,  and  as  the  miracles  increased,  he  would 
have  summarized  towards  the  conclusion.  Instead  of 
this  leisurely  introduction  of  the  miraculous  element, 
we  are  startled  very  early  with  this  announcement : 
“  They  brought  unto  him  all  sick  people  that  were 
taken  with  divers  diseases  and  torments,  and  those 
which  were  possessed  with  devils,  and  those  which 
were  lunatic,  and  those  that  had  the  palsy ;  and  he 


THE  MIGHTY  WORKS. 


67 


healed  them.”  All  was  as  easy  as  bringing  ice  into 
the  presence  of  the  summer  sun,  that  it  might  be 
melted.  The  unity  of  the  mystery  is  again  evident. 
Even  in  this  marvellous  statement  there  is  nothing  out 
of  harmony  with  what  has  preceded.  Is  there  any¬ 
thing  to  be  wondered  at,  with  sceptical  wonder,  that 
the  Man  who  conquered  the  devil  in  the  wilderness, 
should  conquer  the  devil’s  works  in  human  nature? 
The  greater  involves  the  less.  All  true  conquest  must 
be  fundamental,  and  to  be  fundamental  it  must  be 
moral.  To  the  man  who  has  conquered  himself,  all 
other  conquests  must  be  easy.  Only  a  man’s  bad 
elements  stand  between  him  and  the  greatest  achieve¬ 
ments.  If  the  prince  of  this  world  finds  nothing  in  a 
man,  that  man  is  free  of  the  checks  and  impediments 
which  limit  abnormal  human  nature. 

Miracles  can  be  difficult  of  credence  only  according 
to  the  low  spiritual  altitude  from  which  they  are 
viewed.  As  wonder  is  a  sign  of  ignorance,  so  unbe¬ 
lief  is  a  sign  of  incompleteness.  The  unlettered  man 
is  amazed  at  language  which  to  the  learned  man  is 
perfectly  simple,  just  because  the  learned  man  has 
conquered  himself  by  bringing  his  powers  under  ade¬ 
quate  discipline,  whereas  the  untaught  man  is  ruled 
by  his  own  ignorance.  The  novice,  in  anything,  is 
necessarily  impressed  with  the  difficulty  of  a  great 
work,  whereas  the  adept  has  oveicome  all  the  dis¬ 
turbing  sensations  which  inevitably  accompany  in¬ 
experience.  The  novice  invariably  first  sees  the 
difficulty  ;  he  is  conscious  of  a  disparity  between  die 
forces  at  his  command,  and  the  result  to  be  attained, 
and  soon  augments  difficulty  into  impossibility.  The 


68 


ECCE  DEUS. 


man  of  diminutive  faith,  a  man  in  whom  the  self¬ 
element  is  uppermost,  is  astounded  at  the  miracles  of 
Jesus  Christ ;  while  the  man  of  large  faith,  in  whom 
the  self-element  is  subordinated,  accepts  them  with 
composure.  Christ  himself  taught  the  doctrine  both 
negatively  and  positively,  and  with  incessant  urgency, 
that  faith  was  the  nexus  binding  the  natural  to  the 
supernatural.  In  proportion  as  any  man  has  faith,  is 
he  led  away  from  himself ;  and  this  brings  us  to  the 
point  just  stated,  that  self-conquest  makes  all  other 
conquests  easy.  Christ  said  that  faith  even  so  small 
as  a  grain  of  mustard-seed  was  more  than  a  match  for 
mountains.  Why  not?  Power  is  mental  rather  than 
physical.  It  would  be  a  poor  thing  to  be  a  man,  if 
he  could  not  make  himself  master  of  the  dust  on  which 
he  lives.  But  the  highest  mastery  is  moral,  and  if 
the  moral  element  is  wrong,  his  dominion  is  of  course 
abridged  or  upset.  Wickedness  is  weakness.  As  the 
intellectual  man  inhabits  a  wider  region  than  the  man 
who  is  ignorant,  so  the  good  man  has  a  power  com¬ 
pared  with  which  the  bad  man’s  rulership  is  a  pitiful 
travesty  of  influence.  The  bad  man  has  the  power  of 
destruction,  the  good  man  of  restoration.  Any  beast 
can  do  mischief.  But  more  on  this  point  presently. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  things  to  prevent 
miracles  being  wrought  to-day  as  well  as  they  were 
ever  wrought.  The  Yogis  among  the  Hindus  believed 
that  they  could  acquire  perfect  mastery  over  elemen¬ 
tary  matter.  They  sought  to  effect  a  vital  union  be¬ 
tween  the  spirit  that  was  in  the  body,  and  the  spirit 
that  was  in  nature,  and  having  effected  that  mystic 
union,  the  Yogi  was  master  of  the  situation,  traversing 


THE  MIGHTY  WORKS. 


69 


space,  raising  the  dead,  rendering  hirnself  invisible, 
and  going  up  to  Siva,  the  spirit  and  essence  of  all 
creation.  There  is  a  good  deal  more  in  this  philo¬ 
sophic  dreaming  than  our  modern  notions  may  be 
prepared  to  allow.  It  was  not  the  mere  power  of 
the  hand  which  the  Yogi  sought,  but  the  wider  and 
grander  empire  of  the  spirit.  What  the  Yogi  sought 
to  effect  was  a  union  between  spirit  and  spirit ;  and 
this  was  precisely  what  Christ  sought  to  effect  when 
he  demanded  faith  as  the  condition  of  miraculous  heal¬ 
ing.  Where  this  union  was  complete,  the  working  of 
miracles  was  as  natural  and  easy  as  breathing.  They 
were  miracles  only  to  the  observers,  not  to  the  w  orkers, 
for  the  workers  stood  on  a  moral  elevation  high  above 
them,  and  saw  their  exact  relation  to  God  and  man. 
It  is  not  extraordinary  that  the  faith  which  is  not 
strong  enough  to  work  miracles  should  not  be  strong 
enough  to  believe  that  miracles  can  be  wrought,  though 
it  may  be  narrow  enough  to  brand  him  as  a  fanatic 
who  affirms  their  possibility.  Man  cannot  advance  to 
the  miracle  except  through  the  faith.  There  can  be 
no  doubt  that  the  faith  of  the  world  has  gone  down  ; 
and  in  part  this  may  be  accounted  for  by  the  intellectual 
transition  through  w’hich  we  are  being  driven  by  re 
vived  and  ambitious  science.  We  have  come  upon  an 
era  which  has  hardly  time  to  pause  and  add  results  ;  in¬ 
formation  is  arriving  so  quickly,  the  messengers  throng 
upon  each  other  so  tumultuously,  that  most  of  men 
have  taken  upon  themselves  the  duties  of  recorders ; 
and  if  sometimes  they  are  a  little  heedless  of  the  punc¬ 
tuation,  and  by  mistaking  a  comma  for  a  full  stop  they 
do  now  and  again  speak  too  soon,  the  impatience  or 


7° 


ECCE  DEU$. 

the  precipitancy  is  not  difficult  of  explanation.  In 
fact,  it  is  a  hint  that  men  are  longing  for  the  end.  The 
great,  suffering,  human  world  feels  that  its  day  must 
be  approaching  sunset.  It  has  been  a  long,  troubled, 
changeful  day,  and  men  are  now  sighing  for  release 
and  rest.  The  shaking  and  damaging  of  faith  is  a 
hint  of  a  crisis,  and  the  old  words,  sad  as  a  sigh  from 
the  heart,  come  up  with  great  force —  u  When  the  Son 
of  man  cometh  shall  he  find  faith  on  the  earth?” 
There  is  a  touching  plaintiveness  in  the  inquiry  ;  he 
seems  to  have  anticipated  but  a  poor  reception  foi 
himself.  Perhaps,  however,  as  m  die  days  of  his  flesh, 
the  unfaith  of  those  who  oughi  to  have  been  nearest 
will  be  counterbalanced  by  the  trust  of  men  now  sup¬ 
posed  to  be  afar  off. 

It  is  a  mistake  to  imagine  that  faith  has  anything  to 
fear  from  science.  Wherever  science  stops,  faith  must 
begin.  Science  has  in  many  things  altered  the  stand 
point,  or  extended  the  domain  of  faith,  but  has  never 
rendered  faith  unnecessary.  It  has  enlarged  the  faith 
of  childhood  into  the  faith  of  manhood,  but  every  hint 
of  light  which  it  has  discovered  has  pointed  out  a 
great  gloom  beyond.  It  was  intended  that  Credo 
should  be  succeeded  by  Scio ;  yet  knowledge  is  val¬ 
uable,  not  only  for  what  is  in  itself,  but  as  showing 
how  much  there  yet  remains  to  be  known,  and  by  so 
much  as  it  does  this  it  actually  increases  the  sphere  of 
faith. 

One  of  the  most  persuasive  features  of  the  Christian 
miracles  is  that  they  were  associated  with  a  true  human 
compassion  on  the  part  of  Jesus  Christ.  They  were 
not  displays  of  mere  power.  They  made  a  heavy 


THE  MIGIITY  WORKS. 


71 

drain  upon  his  sympathy  and  love.  When  he  saw 
blind,  deaf,  insane,  tormented  men,  he  had  compas¬ 
sion  on  them.  His  emotional  nature  was  profoundly 
stirred.  Christ’s  was  not  dry  power  —  huge,  unsym¬ 
pathetic  strength.  As  in  all  great  characters  there 
was  much  womanliness  in  Christ.  The  tear  was  never 
»  far  to  fetch.  With  one  human  parent  only,  it  seems 
as  if  the  full  force  of  his  mother’s  tender  nature  was 
reproduced  in  him.  When  Omnipotence  weeps,  we 
should  consider  the  meaning  which  lies  behind  the 
tears.  It  has  been  pointed  out  that  the  Olympian  gods 
contrived  to  keep  themselves  free  from  the  pains  and 
cares  of  the  mortals  whom  they  ruled.  For  them  it 
was  enough  to  govern  —  it  was  too  much  to  suffer. 
In  bitter  accents  did  Achilles  reproach  the  gods,  as 
he  attempted  to  comfort  the  hoary  Priam. 

8j$  ydo  ircexlwcravTO  OboI  dsdoiai  qotoicji 

"Qmiv  dc/wfitvoig-  aviol  di  %  elcrlv . 

But  Christ’s  life  was  not  “  griefless  ;  ”  his  word  of 
power  was  spoken  with  a  tenderness  which  the  world 
will  remember  forever.  It  is  not  difficult  to  see  the 
consonance  of  the  mystery  here.  The  man  who  came 
to  be  a  Saviour,  and  to  found  a  monarchy  upon  himself, 
should  be  possessed  of  the  finest  and  most  accessible 
sensibilities,  for  monarchs  can  be  monarchs  only  so  long 
as  they  hold  the  hearts  of  men.  Monarchy,  in  its  last 
analysis  and  highest  application,  is  really  a  double¬ 
sided  term,  meaning  not  only  rulership,  but  rulership 
by  consent.  Men  cannot  be  permanently  held  by  mere 
power;  they  will  fear  it,  admire  it,  and  then  throw  it 
off.  Everything  tires  but  love.  Prophecies  fail,  tongues 


72 


ECCE  DEUS. 


cease,  love  alone  is  immortal.  The  monarchy  of  Christ 
was  founded  upon  the  heart,  upon  love,  and  therefore 
with  a  consistency  which  is  too  profound  to  be  acci¬ 
dental  he  had  compassion  upon  all  who  trustfully  in¬ 
voked  his  power.  He  wanted  the  healed  man  after¬ 
wards.  The  client  was  to  become  the  ally.  Gratitude 
was  to  become  loyalty,  and  on  this  deep  base  the  world 
wide  kingdom  was  to  be  established. 

Another  feature  of  the  mighty  works,  coincident 
with  the  compassion  which  they  expressed,  is  their 
unselfishness .  The  worker  is  everywhere  not  power¬ 
ful  only,  but  good.  Once  indeed  he  gave  an  intima¬ 
tion,  incidentally,  of  what  would  happen  if  he  were 
to  let  loose  his  power  in  all  its  terribleness  ;  the  damn¬ 
ing  word  fell  upon  a  fruitless  tree,  and  to  the  very 
roots  it  withered  away.  What  if  the  same  annihi¬ 
lating  word  had  fallen  upon  useless  men?  It  was  well 
no  doubt  to  leave  one  such  memorial  of  mere  power, 
that  society  might  see  how  short  a  distance  lay  between 
life  and  death.  It  has  been  pointed  out  by  a  recent 
writer,  as  a  curious  circumstance,  that  men  should 
hazard  so  much  open,  contemptuous,  and  even  violent 
opposition  to  a  man  who  carried  such  resources  of 
power.  They  did  not  stand  in  awe  of  him,  but  con¬ 
tradicted  him  to  his  face,  and  took  up  stones  to  stone 
him.  This  does  seem  contradictory  to  the  general 
expectation  which  such  circumstances  naturally  excite. 
Looked  at  from  this  distance  of  time,  and  under  the 
conditions  of  our  ordinary  life,  it  is  impossible  to  be¬ 
lieve  that  men  should  be  so  insane  as  to  take  up  stones 
against  a  man  who  had  just  shown  that  he  could  open 
the  eyes  of  the  blind,  cleanse  the  virus  from  the  blood 


THE  MIGHTY  WORKS. 


73 


of  the  leper,  and  reanimate  the  dead.  They  had  not 
heard  of  his  doing  so,  but  had  actually  seen  him.  If 
they  believed  their  own  senses  they  could  have  no 
doubt  about  the  fact  of  Christ’s  unexampled  power, 
yet  they  took  up  stones  ’to  stone  him  ;  it  was  worse 
than  attempting  to  stone  the  lightning,  —  madder  than 
throwing  dust  in  the  face  of  a  storm  !  Yet  they  did  it. 
The  explanation  of  this  circumstance  lies  deeper, 
probably,  than  has  been  recently  suggested.  In  one 
view  of  the  case,  the  action  of  taking  up  stones  to 
stone  such  a  man  was  on  the  part  of  the  Jews  not  only 
natural,  but,  considering  their  traditions  and  circum¬ 
stances,  rather  admirable  than  otherwise.  They  were 
Old  Testament  men,  and  all  Old  Testament  men  be¬ 
lieved  in  stones.  They  would  in  a  moment  answer  an 
idea  with  a  stone,  and  cleave  down  erratic  thinkers 
with  the  edge  of  the  sword.  But  the  action  of  the 
Jews  was  admirable  rather  than  otherwise,  on  the 
ground  that  they  showed  how  religious  conviction  lay 
deeper  than  all  fear  of  mere  power.  The  Jews  were 
religious  men  ;  they  had  sacred  historic  documents  to 
refer  to,  with  many  traditional  legends ;  the  man  be¬ 
fore  them  laid  claims  to  dignities  which  they  could  not 
harmonize  with  interpretations  of  the  oracles ;  and 
though  he  seemed  to  be  able  to  do  as  he  willed  with 
the  universe,  yet  in  the  very  face  of  his  stupendous 
and  never-baffled  power  they  took  up  stones  to  stone 
him.  Their  action  was  really  a  grand  tribute  to  the 
force  of  religion  in  the  heart  of  men.  Their  theism 
was  arrayed  against  this  Christism,  and  with  little  of 
physical  power  they  opposed  a  man  whom  they  be¬ 
lieved  to  be  a  blasphemous  and  mendacious  talker. 


4 


74 


ECCE  DEUS. 


This  probably  goes  nearer  to  the  reality  of  the  case 
than  some  recent  theories,  though  they  too  are  not 
without  value.  It  is  quite  true  that  Christ  had  always 
used  his  power  beneficently ;  “  not  to  destroy  men’s 
lives,  but  to  save  them,”  Was  written  on  all  he  did ; 
the  fear  which  his  works  were  calculated  to  excite  was 
not  alarm,  but  religious  awe  ;  his  power  was  construc¬ 
tive,  not  destructive.  This  view  was  much  strength¬ 
ened  by  Christ’s  own  method  of  meeting  those  who 
took  up  stones  to  stone  him,  for  in  his  turn  he  showed 
the  power  of  deep  religious  conviction  on  human  life. 
He  did  not  lay  them  at  his  feet  as  dead  men,  nor  did 
he  even  send  upon  them  temporary  blindness,  or  any 
kind  of  physical  distress.  What  he  could  have  done! 
When  they  stooped  to  take  up  stones  he  might  have 
fastened  them  in  their  stooping  attitude,  and  left  them 
as  warnings  to  the  whole  progeny  of  scoffers.  Instead 
of  this  he  reasons  with  them,  cites  the  good  works  he 
has  done,  and  asks  them  to  point  out  the  particular  one 
for  which  they  stone  him.  He  calls  them  to  calm 
consideration.  He  shows  no  fear  of  the  stoning,  does 
not  even  care  to  condemn  it  —  probably  he  was  touched 
by  their  zeal  for  God ;  that  was  something  to  begin 
with  and  to  work  upon,  and  he  could  not  witness  it 
without  feeling  more  and  more  the  depth  of  human 
nature  and  the  importance  of  its  restoration.  They 
believed  in  one  side  of  his  own  nature,  had  they  but 
known  it!  “Ye  believe  in  God,  believe  also  in  me,” 
—  only  an  “also”  between  God  and  Christ!  The 
boldness  of  his  scheme,  too,  considered  in  a  purely 
human  view,  is  the  more  apparent  by  his  first  appear¬ 
ing  among  a  people  who  knew  and  revered  the  true 


THE  MIGHTY  WORKS. 


75 


God.  He  did  not  try  to  impose  upon  an  idolatrous  or 
ignorant  people,  but  began  under  the  very  light  of  the 
Shekinah,  among  the  people  whose  prophets  had 
heard  the  voice  of  the  Eternal.  He  operated  upon 
the  oldest  and  ripest  theism  of  the  world.  This  was 
dangerous  work  for  a  fanatic.  He  must  be  not  an 
impostor,  but  a  madman,  who  challenges  heaven  and 
earth  in  the  interest  of  a  lie.  Having  to  encounter  a 
theism  so  advanced,  because  so  true  and  simple,  Christ 
could  well  understand  how  the  Jews  would  be  indig¬ 
nant  at  any  dishonor  put  upon  God  ;  and  this  indigna¬ 
tion,  which  at  first  sight  was  a  great  hinderance,  was 
the  natural  expression  of  a  fact  which  would  one  day 
be  turned  to  the  best  account.  They  seemed  to  feel 
themselves  safe  from  his  power  while  they  rested  upon 
the  God  of  their  fathers,  and  so  made  a  claim  upon  the 
practical  resources  of  the  pre-Christian  theology  which 
w'ould  not  shrink  from  comparison  with  the  boldest 
confidence  which  men  can  repose  in  Christ’s  own 
promises.  Fearing  God,  they  were  lifted  above  all 
other  fear.  The  ancient  songs  of  trust  were  repeating 
themselves  in  their  souls  —  “God  is  our  refuge  and 
strength  ;  ”  u  The  Lord  is  my  light  and  my  salvation  : 
whom  shall  I  fear?”  On  the  other  hand,  Christ  also 
showed  the  power  of  the  divine  element  in  man.  He 
was  alone,  or  if  not  literally  alone,  his  companionships 
were  such  as  to  constitute  a  bitter  satire  upon  his  claims 
to  be  considered  Messiah,  Redeemer,  King.  His  com¬ 
panions  made  him  look  ridiculous  in  the  eyes  of  the 
ruling  classes.  Yet  with  so  little  visible  background, 
he  talked  and  worked  with  the  consciousness  of  a  man 
who  could  not  be  put  down,  and  could  not  even  be 


ECCE  DEUS. 


<r'  I 


* 


76 

stoned.  As  he  could  not  Christianize  men  by  mira¬ 
cles,  so  he  could  not  be  deposed  from  the  MessiaVship 
by  stones.  On  both  sides,  mere  power  was  shown  to 
be  useless  as  a  moral  agent.  The  battle  must  be  fought 
with  different  weapons.  Spiritual  results  must  be  at¬ 
tained  by  spiritual  processes.  Still  the  mighty  works, 
bearing,  as  they  did,  a  constructive  aspect,  were  auxil¬ 
iary  to  the  main  end.  They  certainly  called  attention 
to  the  worker,  and  as  certainly  they  made  a  powerful 
appeal  to  the  persons  who  were  benefited  by  them. 
One  of  those  persons,  for  example,  made  a  trenchant 
and  powerful  defence  of  Christ  before  the  Pharisees. 
Like  a  common-sense  man,  he  took  his  stand  upon  the 
simple  facts  of  the  case  ;  despising  all  the  cajolery  of 
the  baffled  and  incredulous  critics,  he  said,  with  the 
charming  and  unanswerable  frankness  of  an  honest 
and  thankful  man,  u  Whether  he  be  a  sinner  or  no,  ) 
know  not ;  one  thing  I  know,  that  whereas  I  wa> 
blind,  now  I  see.”  Christ  had  thus,  by  his  miraculous 
power,  made  a  marked  advance  upon  the  man’s  nature, 
—  he  had  established  “one  thing”  in  his  convictions, 
and  thus  prepared  the  way  for  further  conquest.  Ac¬ 
cordingly  we  find  this  to  be  the  case,  for  the  man  after¬ 
wards  “  worshipped  him.”  The  mighty  Worker  was 
admitted  through  the  body  to  the  soul.  We  have  only 
to  take  this  instance  as  a  specimen,  and  to  multiply  it 
by  the  number  of  the  mighty  works,  to  obtain  a  com¬ 
parative  view  of  the  value  of  constructive  miracles  in 
the  propagation  of  Christian  faith.  Not  only  upon  the 
clients  themselves,  but  i  pon  thoughtful  observers,  the 
miracles  produced  very  helpful  impressions,  as  may  be 
seen  from  the  confession  of  a  ruler  of  the  Jews,  who 


THE  MIGHTY  WORKS. 


77 


candidly  said,  “  Rabbi,  we  know  that  thou  art  a 
teacher  come  from  God,  for  no  man  can  do  these 
miracles  that  thou  doest,  except  God  be  with  him.” 
This  was  the  conclusion  of  a  reasoner,  who  did  not 
examine  effects  in  the  light  of  religious  prejudices, 
but  who  considered  them  in  relation  to  adequate 
causes.  He  had  seen  displays  of  human  power,  and 
he  knew  the  general  range  of  human  ability,  but  these 
particular  miracles  of  the  despised  Rabbi  went  far 
beyond  all  that  he  had  seen,  far  beyond  all  he  had 
imagined,  and  compelled  the  conclusion,  willing  or 
not  willing,  that  this  man  was  at  least  a  co-worker  with 
God,  carrying  keys  of  power,  such  as  he  had  never 
seen  on  the  girdle  of  the  strongest  man. 

Then,  too,  as  already  hinted,  the  miracles  bore  a 
special  relation  to  the  devil  himself.  The  miracles 
were  polygonal ;  one  side  looked  towards  suffering  men, 
another  towards  observers,  a  third  towards  doubters, 

f  ' 

a  fourth  towards  the  devil,  and  so  on.  Christ’s  struggle 
with  the  tempter  was  only  begun  in  the  wilderness  ;  it 
was  continued  to  the  very  end  of  his  earthly  course. 
No  devil,  would  have  meant  no  Christ.  Peter  put  the 
case  concisely  and  strikingly,  when  he  talked  to  Cor¬ 
nelius :  speaking  of  Jesus  Christ,  he  said,  “He  went 
about  doing  good,  and  healing  all  that  were  oppressed 
of  the  devil.”  The  works  of  the  enemy  were  on  every 
hand  ;  they  must  be  thrown  into  contrast  by  the  work? 
of  the  Son.  They  must  be  distinctly  charged  upon 
the  enemy,  and  the  responsibility  must  be  publicly  and 
immovably  fixed  upon  him.  No  doubt  must  be  left 
on  men’s  minds  as  to  the  source  of  all  evil  and  suffer¬ 
ing.  The  two  workers  were  thus  brought,  as  it  were, 


78 


ECCE  DEUS. 


face  to  face  before  society,  and  each  was  openly  iden¬ 
tified  with  a  particular  course.  On  the  one  hand  there 
was  destruction,  on  the  other  restoration.  Men  thus 
had  an  opportunity  of  seeing  that  Christ’s  opposition 
to  the  devil  was  the  controversial  aspect  of  his  love  for 
man  ;  an  opportunity  which  owed  much  to  the  mirac¬ 
ulous  works  which  immediately  appealed  to  the  physi¬ 
cal  senses  and  the  common  instinct  of  the  observers. 
The  opportunity  would  not  have  been  marked  by  the 
same  commanding  breadth,  if  Christ  had  confined  him¬ 
self  entirely  to  teaching ;  the  cure  of  the  body  being 
more  easily  appreciable  as  an  introductory  step,  than  a 
direct  attempt  at  the  illumination  of  the  mind.  Every 
miracle  was  a  challenge  to  a  comparison  of  powers. 
Every  healed  man  was  Christ’s  living  protest  against 
death.  The  mere  fact  of  the  miracle  was  but  a  sylla¬ 
ble  in  Christ’s  magnificent  doctrine  of  life.  Christ’s 
mission  may  be  summed  up  in  the  word  Life  ;  the 
devil’s,  in  the  word  Death  ;  so  that  every  recovered 
limb,  every  opened  eye,  every  purified  leper,  was  a 
confirmation  of  his  statement,  “  I  have  come,  that  they 
might  have  life.” 

The  limitation  of  miraculous  power  was  twofold. 
There  was,  first,  the  limitation  which  came  from  the 
unreceptive  condition  of  the  people ;  and  there  was 
the  limitation  necessitated  by  the  difference  between 
the  outward  and  the  inward,  the  material  and  the 
moral.  At  one  place  Christ  could  not  do  many 
mighty  works  because  of  the  unbelief  of  the  people  ; 
the  utmost  he  could  do  was  to  lay  his  hands  upon  a 
few  sick  folks  and  heal  then!.  The  electric  current 
was  incomplete.  The  inhabitants  were  self-involved  ; 


THE  MIGHTY  WORKS. 


79 


no  tendril  of  the  heart  was  putting  itself  foith  in 
search  of  protection  ;  all  the  fibres  were  knotted  in 
impenetrable  selfishness  :  Christ  himself  had  no  power 
there.  He  must  have  faith  as  a  starting-point,  other¬ 
wise  no  miracles  in  harmony  with  his  moral  purpose 
could  be  wrought.  Miracles  of  mere  power  he  could 
have  performed  anywhere,  but  such  miracles  were  not 
included  in  his  plan  of  life.  His  omnipotence  was  the 
agent  of  his  mercy,  and  consequently  it  was  the  prov¬ 
ince  of  mercy  to  determine  where  the  services  of  om¬ 
nipotence  should  be  offered,  and  where  mercy  was 
rejected  omnipotence  was  held  in  abeyance.  On  one 
occasion,  indeed,  Christ’s  power  operated  in  a  direc¬ 
tion  that  was  merely  destructive.  A  legion  of  devils 
besought  him  to  let  them  enter  into  a  herd  of  swine 
(a  terrible  illustration  of  the  intolerableness  of  life  in 
hell),  and  on  obtaining  permission  the  whole  herd,  to 
the  number  of  two  thousand,  ran  into  the  sea  and  was 
destroyed.  Much  has  been  said  against  the  people 
who  besought  Christ  to  leave  their  coasts  on  finding 
their  swine  destroyed  ;  they  have  been  charged  with 
sordidness,  selfishness,  and  low  ideas  of  the  value  of 
human  amelioration  :  though  we  may  steal  a  cheap 
reputation  for  magnanimity  at  the  expense  of  those 
unfortunate  people,  yet  they  were  right  after  all  in 
desiring  such  a  man  as  they  took  Christ  to  be  to 
depart  from  their  midst.  Their  request  was  the 
expression  of  a  great  principle  in  the  human  constitu¬ 
tion,  implanted  there  by  the  Creator.  Men  cannot  be 
benefited  by  mere  power,  but  they  are  necessarily 
reduced  to  a  meaner  manhood  by  the  presence  of  a 
nower  that  is  destructive.  The  history  of  despotism 


So 


ECCE  DEUS. 


proves  tliis.  To  have  in  the  city  or  nation  a  powei 
that  is  incontrollably  destructive  is  to  live  in  perpetual 
fear,  and  fear  can  never  train  a  noble  and  generous 
manhood.  People  never  beg  thunder  and  lightning 
to  continue  amongst  them,  but  they  often  wish  that 
summer  would  never  go  away.  The  Jews,  therefore, 
who  lost  their  swine,  showed  what  would  have  been 
the  result  if  Christ  had  given  full  scope  to  his  power 
of  destruction  ;  men  would  have  been  overshadowed 
by  a  great  apprehension,  and  in  the  darkness  of  such 
a  horror  would  have  dwindled  into  a  pitiable  dwarf¬ 
ishness.  Besides,  as  said  before,  there  is  nothing  so 
common  and  so  vulgar  as  destructive  power.  The 
meanest  insect  can  destroy  the  loveliest  flower :  the 
coarsest  lips  can  utter  defamatory  and  injurious  words. 
All  destructiveness,  individual,  social,  national,  lies  in 
the  same  direction,  and  the  beginning  and  end  of  that 
direction  is  the  devil.  The  constructiveness  of  the 
Christian  miracles  is  a  most  emphatic  confirmation  of 
Christ’s  claim  to  be  the  Saviour  of  the  world.  They 
are  consonant  with  the  natal  song  —  “good  will  to 
men  ;  ”  —  they  are  opposed  to  the  unchanging  diabolic 
policy  under  which  the  world  has  endured  so  much, 
and  they  prepare  men  to  accept  the  promise  of  a 
higher  salvation  than  that  of  the  body. 

We  have  said  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  nature 
of  things  to  prevent  miracles  being  wrought  to-day. 
This  is  true  abstractly,  yet  miracles  are  practically 
superseded  by  the  dominion  of  the  Spirit.  The  work¬ 
ing  of  miracles  in  a  purely  spiritual  dispensation 
would  be  an  anachronism.  Miracles  were  qviite  in 
accordance  with  the  personal  superintendence  of  the 


THE  MIGHTY  WORKS. 


8l 


visible  Christ,  but  now  that  Christ  is  no  more  known 
after  the  flesh  the  whole  system  of  objective  demon- 
stiation  has  gone  up  with  him.  What,  then,  is  in 
harmony  with  the  rulership  of  the  Spirit?  Not  mira¬ 
cles,  certainly,  but  science  probably.  Intellect  is  now 
summoned  to  a  new  and  critical  position.  Creation 
has  apparently  exhausted  its  period  of  reticence,  and 
seems  now,  using  figurative  language,  to  be  prepared 
for  a  frank  communication  of  its  secrets  ;  — or  better, 
man  has  been  educated  so  far  by  Christian  agencies 
as  now  to  be  master  of  the  right  method  of  holding 
intercourse  with  the  laws  which  have  been  the  prob¬ 
lem  and  even  the  dread  of  many  ages.  Humanity 
has  been  carried  forward  by  the  mystery  which  began 
in  Christ  —  forward  from  the  material  to  the  spiritual, 
from  the  miraculous  to  the  moral.  Thus  reason, 
which  has  been  so  long  reviled,  is  no  longer  neces¬ 
sarily  the  corrupt  and  misleading  agent  that  it  was, 
but  an  honorable,  because  divinely-appointed  guide. 
This  is  the  inevitable  result  of  a  spiritual  dispensation. 
The  visible  Christ  made  appeals  to  the  natural  senses  ; 
the  Spirit  does  the  inward  and  vital  work  of  co?zvic- 
tion.  The  Holy  Spirit,  as  becomes  his  nature,  stands 
in  the  line  of  the  intellectual  faculties,  elevating  them, 
purifying  and  strengthening  them,  and  giving  them 
new  power  of  investigation  and  appliance.  Distinc¬ 
tively,  then,  this  is  the  dispensation  of  the  Spirit,  the 
gge  of  mind,  the  era  of  reason.  It  does  not  follow, 
however,  that  Reason  has  completed  her  education  ; 
and  by  so  much  as  Reason  is  incomplete  it  must  be 
carefully  distinguished  from  Understanding.  The 
danger  which  some  persons  apprehend  from  what  is 

4* 


62 


ECCE  DEUS. 


termed  Rationalism  arises  from  a  confusion  of  terms. 
Reason  is  an  instrument,  Understanding  is  a  result. 
In  proportion  as  reason  is  educated,  a  prudent  hesita¬ 
tion  marks  all  its  processes.  Philosophy  is  more 
tolerant  than  ignorance.  He  who  knows  most  of  the 
strength  of  the  human  mind,  knows  most  of  its  weak¬ 
ness.  Truth  has  nothing  to  fear  from  rationalism, 
but  from  irrationalism.  The  era  of  reason  is  prelim¬ 
inary  to  the  age  of  understanding.  The  greatest 
reasoner  in  the  apostolic  church  always  kept  this  in 
view:  he  said,  “I  know  in  part;”  UI  see  through  a 
glass  darkly ;  ”  afterwards,  under  the  inspiration  of  a 
splendid  hope,  he  added,  “but  then  shall  I  know.” 
The  world  never  could  have  been  reared  by  under¬ 
standing,  only  by  promise  ;  this  is  in  keeping  with  the 
whole  constitution  of  things.  The  child  of  the  phi¬ 
losopher  is  not  permitted  to  begin  where  his  father 
ended,  but  is  driven  back  to  start  with  the  child  of  the 
unlettered  peasant,  as  if  his  father  had  not  made  one 
attainment  in  learning.  In  this  way  society  in  all  its 
breadth  is  carried  through  the  same  experiences,  and 
educated  to  a  common  sympathy.  Promise,  then,  not 
knowledge,  has  been  the  great  stimulant  of  human 
education ;  and  as  for  understanding,  that  lies  far 
beyond  this  initial  sphere.  Early  in  the  world’s  his¬ 
tory  it  was  shown  that  knowledge  was  out  of  place, 
except  under  such  conditions  as  required  the  presence 
of  hope  to  inspire  and  impel  mankind.  The  knowing 
man,  consequently,  was  sent  out  of  the  sphere  which 
he  had  desecrated,  and  a  flaming  sword  was  made 
to  show  that  knowledge  might  be  bought  too  dearly. 

The  Holy  Spirit  presides  over  the  intellectual  devel- 


THE  MIGHTY  WORKS. 


S3 


opulent  of  man,  leading  him,  as  Christ  promised,  into 
all  truth  —  the  truth  of  the  body,  the  truth  of  nature, 
as  well  as  the  truth  of  religion  specially  so  called. 
The  miraculous  is  now  set  back  in  distant  history  as 
one  phase  of  divine  revelation,  which  may  yet  teach 
us  much  of  power  combined  with  mercy ;  but  the 
spiritual  sheds  its  penetrating  lustre  over  the  future, 
charming  men  into  deeper  investigation  than  was 
possible  to  the  ages  which  have  been  trained  by 
symbol,  and  enigma,  and  miracle.  What  function 
Christ  assigned  to  the  Holy  Spirit  will,  however,  be 
considered  more  in  detail  in  another  chapter. 


84 


CHAPTER  VII. 

« 

THE  CALLING  OF  MEN. 

HITHERTO  the  Beloved  Son  has  been  alone.  In 
his  Baptism  and  Temptation  no  man  stood  with 
him  ;  but  shortly  after,  he  began  to  move  more  con¬ 
spicuously  in  society,  and  to  clear  for  himself  a  space 
in  the  world.  Christ’s  call  upon  men  to  join  him  is, 
perhaps,  more  astonishing  than  many  of  the  miracles 
which  he  wrought.  First  words  are  generally  key¬ 
words.  They  commit  the  speaker  to  a  policy,  and 
when  spoken  to  minds  which  have  been  excited  by 
great  expectations  are  probably  never  forgotten.  Look¬ 
ing  at  Christ’s  moral  work  in  the  light  of  his  miracles, 
one  cannot  but  wonder  why  such  a  man  did  not  pros¬ 
ecute  his  work  single-handed.  What  need  had  he 
for  fellowship?  how  could  men  be  associated  with 
him  without  feeling  most  oppressively  the  impassable 
chasm  which  lay  between  him  and  themselves? 

Christ  used  the  imperative  mood  freely  at  the  be¬ 
ginning  of  his  ministry;  “Repent,”  u  Follow,”  were 
among  his  earliest  public  words.  In  the  wilderness 
he  had  gradually  risen  to  an  imperative  tone  —  from 
a  great  principle  which  underlay  all  life  to  a  written 
revelation,  and  then  to  a  moral  indignation  which  could 
not  tolerate  the  presence  of  the  enemy  —  “Get  thee 
hence,  Satan.”  This  seems  to  have  been  the  process 


THE  CALLING  OF  MEN. 


«5 

through  which  he  passed  to  the  highest  courage  •  it 
was  not  at  first  that  he  commanded  Satan  to  begone, 
it  was  not  until  attack  had  followed  attack  that  the 
tone  of  personal  supremacy  penetrated  the  heart  of 
the  tempter.  On  leaving  the  wilderness  he  brings 
with  him  this  noble  courage,  and  opens  his  ministry 
by  calling  upon  men  to  repent  and  to  follow  him. 
Had  he  left  the  wilderness  other  than  as  a  conqueror, 
Ills  tone  would  at  least  have  been  hesitant ;  but  having 
dealt  the  first  shattering  blow  upon  the  diabolic  em¬ 
pire,  he  follows  it  up  by  publicly  drawing  a  line  of  sep¬ 
aration  between  one  class  of  men  and  another.  The 
subtle  consistency  between  the  tone  of  the  victor  and 
the  tone  of  the  evangelist  should  not  be  lost  sight  of  in 
estimating,  the  value  of  the  Christian  argument.  The 
quality  of  the  voice  is  the  same  in  both  cases  ;  the 
same  firm  emphasis ;  the  same  direct  appeal.  The 
postponement  of  the  call,  too,  until  the  close  of  the 
temptation,  is  a  fact  of  supreme  importance.  What 
confidence  could  an  untried  man  have  in  himself? 
The  man  who  has  no  faith  in  himself  is  weak  ;  the 
man  who  has  a  false  faith  in  himself  is  deceptive  ;  the 
man  whose  faith  is  founded  upon  the  fact  of  a  great 
conquest  is  strong  and  honest  in  proportion  to  that 
faith.  The  devil  had  never  been  ordered  out  of  the 
way  so  peremptorily  before,  and  the  utterance  of  such 
an  order,  straining  as  it  must  have  done  all  the  forces 
of  the  soul,  was  succeeded  by  a  period  of  great  pros¬ 
tration.  Angels  came  and  ministered  strength,  and 
then  followed  just  what  has  followed  in  all  human 
experience  —  a  consciousness  of  tried  power,  a  calm 
but  fervent  determination  to  put  the  hard-gained  in- 


86 


ECCE  DEUS. 


fluence  to  further  uses.  He  who  had  successfully 
ordered  off  the  devil  must  now  do  other  work.  The 
great  battle  must  be  succeeded  bv  a  great  construction. 

Christ,  claiming  to  be  King  and  Ruler  of  men,  began 
his  society  with  two  obscure  laborers.  The  narrative 
gives  no  warrant  for  concluding  that  the  men  had 
heard  any  private  and  special  exposition  of  his  views, 
doctrines,  or  plans.  In  common  with  all  Jews,  they 
might  have  had  expectations  and  desires  in  reference 
to  a  king,  but  there  is  no  authority  for  saying  that  they 
had  had  any  preliminary  intercourse  with  Jesus  Christ. 
The  call  met  a  deep  craving  of  the  heart,  and  at 
once  they  joined  Christ  the  Man,  without  knowing 
anything  of  Christ  the  Doctrine.  The  heart  wanted  a 
heart :  life  demanded  life.  The  world  had  lived  long 
enough  upon  written  promises ;  the  cold  parchment 
was  becoming  colder  day  by  day.  There  was  an 
aching  at  the  heart  of  society  —  a  great  trouble  —  an 
exciting  wonder.  The  call  had  a  peculiar  charm 
about  it  in  so  far  as  it  demanded  attachment  to  a 
visible  person.  Not  a  Creed  but  a  Life  bade  them 
“  follow.”  The  men  who  were  called  were  not  likely 
to  know  much  about  doctrine.  Who  could  at  the 
beginning?  Life  can  be  reared  only  by  life.  It  is  so 
in  the  family,  and  must  be  so  in  the  church.  The  last 
thing  that  earnest  inquirers  care  about  is  a  written, 
formal,  dogmatic  creed.  Such  a  creed,  in  fact,  is 
simply  a  sign  that  there  has  been  overbearing  dicta¬ 
tion  on  one  hand,  or  hypocrisy  on  another.  A  written 
creed  is  in  the  nature  of  things  only  an  inconvenient 
convenience.  The  heart  can  never  write  all  that  it 
believes.  What  wonder  then  if,  when  a  living  and 


THE  CALLING  OF  MEN.  S 7 

glowing  love  comes  to  read  the  tabulated  doctrines  of 
the  church,  it  should  complain,  hesitate,  or  rebel?  It 
has  often  been  asserted  that  Christ  did  not  set  down  in 
sequential  order  what  is  known  in  these  modern  days 
as  a  system  of  divinity.  The  assertion  is  not  only 
true  as  a  matter  of  fact,  but  true  as  an  evidence  of  his 
Godhead.  The  divine,  the  immeasurable,  the  eternal, 
cannot  be  formulated.  Life  cannot  be  systematized. 
Architecture  may,  so  may  astronomy,  botany,  and  all 
other  arts  and  sciences.  But  life  is  not  a  science  :  the 
soul  is  not  an  art.  Immediately  that  the  scientific  line 
is  crossed,  the  power  of  systematizing,  if  not  lost,  is  so 
crippled  and  deranged  as  to  be  but  a  poor  accommoda¬ 
tion.  Language  itself,  as  partaking  of  the  nature  of  a 
system,  is  often  felt  to  be  an  inconvenience,  useful  for 
expressing  what  is  uppermost,  but  nearly  powerless  in 
the  articulation  of  what  is  deepest  in  the  soul.  Wisely, 
therefore,  Christ  wrote  nothing,  for  written  language  is 
more  difficult  of  interpretation  than  spoken  language. 
The  eye,  the  tone,  the  smile,  help  words  that  are 
spoken  ;  which  is  but  another  way  of  saying  that  life 
is  the  only  true  interpreter.  The  moment  that  the 
grammar  and  the  lexicon  are  called  in,  strife  begins, 
and  logomachy  deposes  wisdom.  A  tone  would  do 
more  than  all  syntax  to  give  the  meaning  of  some  doc¬ 
trines.  The  spoken  word  is  life  ;  the  written  word  is 
statuary.  To  have  come,  therefore,  with  a  written 
creed  in  quest  of  signatures  would  have  been  a  vain 
errand.  The  world  has  differed  more  over  the  in¬ 
terpretation  of  its  own  writing  than  over  anything 
else  —  so  much  so  that  the  interpretation  of  writing 
has  become  a  profession,  in  which  the  directest  con- 


88 


ECCE  DEUS. 


tradictions  are  constantly  maintained  at  the  cost  of 
vindictive  or  credulous  clients.  Parliamentary  debates 
may  be  ambiguous,  but  Parliamentary  Acts^are  in¬ 
comprehensible. 

Probably  the  greatest  stumbling-block  to  the  exten¬ 
sion  of  Christ’s  influence  is  scholastic  or  formulated 
theology.  The  world  is  now  waiting  for  a  voice  cry¬ 
ing  in  the  wilderness  that  men  are  to  be  saved  not  by 
theology  but  by  Christ.  The  Church  must  go  back 
to  Christ’s  own  living  and  mighty  way  of  talking  to 
craving  and  aching  hearts.  Men  must  behold  the 
Lamb,  not  the  controversies  which  have  raged  about 
him.  Throughout  his  ministry  the  exaltation  of  him¬ 
self  was  the  most  conspicuous  feature  :  u  follow  me,” 
—  “  come  unto  me,”  —  u  he  that  believeth  on  me,”  — 
“  he  that  loveth  father  or  mother  more  than  me  is  not 
worthy  of  me,”  —  this  is  the  personal  strain  from  be¬ 
ginning  to  end,  and  it  is  the  only  strain  adapted  to  the 
capture  and  redemption  of  the  world.  It  is  often 
possible  to  understand  a  man  when  it  is  difficult  to 
understand  his  creed.  The  author  may  be  less  a  prob¬ 
lem  than  his  book.  Christ  calls  men  to  himself  with¬ 
out  first  setting  forth  a  list  of  points  to  be  accepted  ; 
men  go  to  the  doctrine  through  the  man,  not  to  the 
man  through  the  doctrine.  We  dare  not  ask  Christ 
what  he  believes,  or  what  we  ourselves  may  have  to 
believe  at  some  future  time ;  we  have  to  believe  in  the 
Revealer,  and  then  we  shall  have  no  difficulty  about 
the  revelation.  In  the  first  instance  we  go  to  the  Man 
Christ  Jesus,  and  sit  at  his  feet,  waiting,  wondering 
and  loving  much.  We  are  touched  by  his  love,  sub¬ 
dued  by  his  tenderness,  before  we  are  enriched  with 
his  doctrine. 


THE  CALLING  OF  MEN.  89 

The  call  of  the  Church  often  differs  from  the  call 
of  Christ  in  being  a  call  to  theology.  In  some  places 
in  modern  Christendom  it  will  be  found  that  the 
Lord’s  table  is  surrounded  by  theologians,  persons  who 
have  passed  successfully  through  more  or  less  of  a 
theological  examination ;  and  that  many  feel  them¬ 
selves  excluded  from  the  memorial  service  because 
though  they  love  Christ  and  could  die  for  him,  yet 
they  cannot  pronounce  the  doctrinal  shibboleth.  What 
does  a  newly-quickened  heart,  coming  up  out  of  the 
waters  of  penitence,  and  just  about  to  move  into  the 
wilderness  of  temptation,  know  about  the  Trinity  in 
Unity,  the  federal  headship  of  Adam,  the  philosophy 
of  sacrifice,  or  the  metaphysics  of  theology  ?  Probably 
nothing.  Yet  such  ignorance  is  not  incompatible  with 
young  life.  Does  the  infant  know  the  mystery  of  love 
when  it  is  clasped  in  the  parental  breast?  Do  parents 
insist  that  their  children  shall  study  agriculture  before 
they  eat  of  the  fruits  of  the  earth?  When  a  man  de¬ 
clares  that  he  loves  Jesus  Christ,  he  has  a  right  to  eat 
of  the  bread  and  drink  of  the  cup  which  the  Lord 
appointed.  Love  first,  knowledge  afterwards :  with 

4 

love  to  begin  with,  all  else  will  come  quietly,  “  with¬ 
out  observation,”  yet  with  unspeakable  joy.  The  heart 
will  build  up  a  belief  as  it  wants  it,  and  wear  it  grace¬ 
fully  because  it  is  its  own.  Sling  or  mail,  no  matter, 
provided  the  man  be  a  warrior  cool  and  resolute.  The 
faith  which  Christ  seeks  is  probably  not  to  be  found 
in  any  one  sect ;  part  of  it  is  in  all,  and  when  it  is 
collated  and  arranged,  it  will  be  the  best  representa¬ 
tive  of  national  churchism.  Uniformity  of  theological 
creed  is  a  simple  impossibility,  and  as  undesirable  as 


90 


ECCE  DEUS. 


it  is  impossible.  The  object  is  the  same,  yet  the 
views  are  different ;  the  foundation  is  the  rock,  yet 
each  man  may  adopt  his  own  architectural  style  ;  the 
parents  may  be  the  same,  yet  in  stature,  form,  faculty, 
disposition,  the  children  may  be  entirely  different. 
The  sun  brings  all  manner  of  flowers  out  of  the  earth, 
varying  endlessly  in  hue  and  fragrance  ;  what  if  the 
light  above  the  brightness  of  the  sun  bring  a  still 
more  varied  summer  out  of  the  winter-bound  heart 
of  man? 

This  view  does  not  diminish  the  influence  of  beljef. 
It  merely  points  out  that  the  man  comes  before  the 
creed,  and  that  there  is  a  difference  of  the  gravest 
importance  between  trust  in  the  living  Christ  and  the 
acceptance  of  a  few  theological  statements  about  him. 
In  the  former  case  there  is  a  full  surrender  of  love,  in 
the  latter  a  mere  intellectual  assent,  unaccompanied 
by  moral  enthusiasm.  The  one  is  necessarily  as¬ 
sociated  with  passion  and  demonstration,  the  other 
may  consist  with  the  lowest  indifference. 

The  manner  of  the  Call  was  quite  consonant  with 
the  mystery  of  all  that  is  summed  up  in  the  word 
Christ.  Its  abruptness  cannot  be  overlooked.  The 
ages  had  been  undergoing  a  long  and  exciting  prep¬ 
aration,  and  by  the  very  strain  of  eager  watching 
and  listening  had  been  educated  to  the  finest  sensibil¬ 
ity.  Otherwise  how  can  the  promptness  and  un¬ 
studied  grace  of  the  fishermen’s  response  be  accounted 
for?  There  was  no  personal  intercourse,  so  far  as 
the  narrative  goes,  no  collusion,  no  pre-arrangement ; 
yet  at  a  word  the  lowly  men  abandon  their  vocation, 
and  assume  a  new  attitude  towards  society.  At  once 


THE  CALLING  OF  MEN.  91 

the  Abrahamic  call  is  suggested :  *  here  is  the  same 
abruptness,  the  same  urgency,  the  same  mystery  of 
the  end.  Men  of  quick  ear  have  heard  the  same  tone 
in  the  second  call  as  was  heard  in  the  first,  and  have 
come  to  know  better  what  was  meant  by  the  bewilder¬ 
ing  statement,  “  Before  Abraham  was,  I  am.”  But 
these  men  were  not  Abrahams.  Though  we  make 
their  acquaintance  somewhat  abruptly,  we  do  them 
no  injustice  in  saying  that  we  do  not  see  in  them  the 
breadth  and  general  vitality  of  manhood  which  were 
so  prominent  in  the  father  of  the  faithful.  When  we 
first  meet  Simon  and  Andrew,  thev  are  but  names  to 
us ;  we  have  had  no  preparatory  hint  of  the  quality  of 
the  men,  and  cannot  therefore  but  hesitate  before 
coupling  them  in  the  same  commendation  with 
Abraham.  A  man  with  an  historic  reputation  is  not 
to  be  dwarfed  into  the  stature  of  men  whose  world 
hardly  extended  beyond  the  boats  in  which  they  spent 
their  unknown  lives.  We  think  we  hear  an  earlier 
call  than  that  of  Abraham  ;  this  seems  to  be  a  call  of 
something  beautiful  out  of  something  rude ;  and 
whether  or  not  it  does  not  accord  with  u  Let  us  make 
man,”  is  a  question  which  ought  not  to  be  left  un¬ 
considered.  The  material  was  low  and  rough  ;  if  out 
of  such  dust  man  could  be  rebuilt,  the  rebuilder  must 
surely  be  God.  Another  word  on  this  presently. 

In  all  revolutionary  movements  there  have  been 
men  who  have  heard  nothing  but  “  Follow,”  and 
have  gone  bravely  forward  to  what  was  mystery  at 
first,  but  what  became  familiar  and  venerated  truth 
at  last.  Such  men  cannot  be  accounted  for.  The 


*  Ecce  Homo ,  p.  40. 


92 


ECCE  DEUS. 


common  rules  have  no  application  to  them.  They 
are  the  enigmas  of  history.  We  have  seen  them  go, 
and  deemed  them  mad,  but  in  the  end  have  been 
compelled  to  withdraw  the  charge  from  them,  and 
fasten  it  on  ourselves.  They  u  saw  a  hand  we  did  not 
see,  and  heard  a  voice  we  did  not  hear.”  The  pros¬ 
pect  before  such  men  has  generally  been  unalluring, 
often  most  disheartening ;  cloud  and  storm  darkening 
and  streaming  from  the  sky,  bitter  wind  striking  them 
in  the  breast,  and  treacherous  bogs  lying  between  them 
and  the  promised  land.  Still  they  heard  the  “Fol¬ 
low  ”  which  was  inaudible  to  duller  ears,  and  went 
forward  at  the  cost  of  their  whole  reputation  for  saga¬ 
city.  What  had  Simon  and  Andrew  to  “  follow  ”  ? 
Looked  at  from  the  common  point  of  view,  their 
decision  was  simple  fanaticism.  The  man  who  had 
invited  them  wTas  nameless  and  powerless,  according 
to  conventional  notions  of  fame  and  influence,  yet 
they  went  with  as  prompt  and  complete  a  surrender 
as  if  a  king  had  offered  them  the  riches  of  a  kingdom. 
It  is  true  that  the  men  were  called  to  a  higher  voca¬ 
tion  ;  they  were  to  be  not  fishers  only,  but  “  fishers  of 
men ;  ”  yet  even  this  promised  elevation  does  nor 
compass  the  mystery  of  the  obedience,  for  multitudes 
declined  Christ’s  invitations,  and  unnumbered  mil¬ 
lions  to-day  hear  his  voice,  and  yet  practically  treat 
his  promises  as  they  would  treat  so  many  lies.  The 
result  of  Christ’s  first  call  cannot  but  be  interesting  to 

O 

all  students  of  his  life.  What  if  Simon  and  Andrew 
had  treated  his  appeal  with  contempt?  What  if 
James  and  John  had  laughed  in  his  face?  What  if 
he  who  conquered  the  devil  had  been  overmatched 


THE  CALLING  OF  MEN. 


93 


by  men  ?  The  experiment  was  most  perilous  for  an 
impostor,  was  impossible  to  a  mere  man,  and  could 
have  been  undertaken  by  God  only.  An  impostor 
would  have  begun  more  warily  ;  a  mere  man  would 
have  begun  at  another  point ;  only  God  would  have 
begun  where  Christ  began.  These  little  circum¬ 
stances  are  great  revelations. 

The  persons,  then,  who  were  called  are  not  such  as 
might  have  been  expected  ;  yet  on  examination  it  will 
be  found  that  they  were  the  only  persons  who  could 
have  been  called,  in  harmony  with  the  whole  mystery 
of  Jesus  Christ.  The  method  of  calling  men  which 
Christ  adopted  is  worth  studying,  if  only  to  see  how 
statesmanlike,  how  philosophical,  yet,  on  the  face  of 
it,  how  absurd  it  was.  He  announces  his  purpose  in 
one  concise  sentence  :  “  I  came  not  to  call  the  right¬ 
eous,  but  sinners  to  repentance.”  This  brings  us  to  a 
wider  meaning  of  the  term  “  call”  than  we  have  in  the 
word  “follow  ;  ”  yet  take  the  declaration  as  an  author¬ 
itative  exposition  of  Christ’s  visit  among  men,  and 
examine  it  as  a  method  of  stating  an  object,  and  we 
shall  see  how  profound  is  the  conception  of  human 
want  which  it  expresses.  This  is  quite  a  new  voice 
on  the  earth.  It  had  been  understood  up  to  this  time 
that  “  sinners”  had  to  be  “  consumed,”  “  destroyed,” 
“  ashamed,”  “  confounded,”  “  desolate  ;  ”  their  teeth 
were  to  be  “  broken,”  and  their  soul  was  to  be 
“  slain.”  Every  man  was  apparently  under  the  im¬ 
pression  that  he  praised  God  in  proportion  as  he 
cursed  the  sinner.  The  evangelical  prophecies  are  no 
exceptions  to  this  rule,  for  they  were,  of  course,  one 
with  the  spirit  of  him  whom  they  announced.  The 


94 


ECCE  DEUS. 


rule  relates  to  the  general  spirit  of  the  world,  to  the 
tone  of  government,  even  government  as  administered 
by  righteous  men.  Jesus  Christ  propounds  the  star¬ 
tling  doctrine  that  he  had  come  from  heaven  for  the 
express  purpose  of  calling  bad  men  to  him.  Could 
any  doctrine,  abstractly  considered,  be  more  horrify¬ 
ing?  We  have  become  accustomed  to  its  repetition, 
until  we  think  nothing  of  it ;  but  put  the  shadow  upon 
the  dial  back  eighteen  hundred  years,  and  say,  how 
should  we  like  to  put  ourselves  side  by  side  in  the 
public  streets  with  a  man  who  had  openly  announced 
that  his  sole  business  on  earth  was  to  hold  intercourse 
with  bad  hearts?  The  worse  the  man,  the  deeper 
the  interest  Christ  took  in  him.  Polite  society  was 
shocked,  and  u  righteous  ”  society  horror-stricken : 
still  he  held  on  his  way,  and  still  he  graciously 
answered  (so  graciously  that  one  wonders  that  every 
heart  on  hearing  it  does  not  instantly  admit  him  as  its 
Lord),  “I  came  not  to  call  the  righteous,  but  sinners 
to  repentance.”  It  was  a  hard  errand  to  come  upon, 
and  only  the  Son  of  God  could  have  undertaken  it. 
What  eye  that  was  merely  human  could  see  the 
grandeur  which  was  concealed  under  the  ruins  of 
humanity  ? 

Christ  began  at  the  lowest  point  in  society.  The 
kingdom  which  he  came  to  establish  was  to  be  an 
everlasting  kingdom  ;  and  everlasting  kingdoms  must 
have  adequate  foundations.  Christ  recognized  the 
essential  distinction  between  men  and  man ,  and  this 
fact  gave  him  a  reach  and  power  over  his  work  which 
otherwise  would  have  been  unattainable.  The  worst 
men  make  the  best.  A  little  nature  could  not  accom 


THE  CALLING  OF  MEN. 


95 


modate  a  legion  of  devils  —  one  man  held  more  than 
could  be  held  by  two  thousand  swine.  By  so  much 
as  a  man  is  diabolized  may  he  be  deified.  It  was, 
therefore,  a  great  tribute  paid  to  the  worth  of  human 
nature  when  Christ  spent  his  life  in  gathering  and 
rebuilding  its  very  ruins.  He  u  came  not  to  call  the 
righteous,  but  sinners  to  repentance.” 

k 

No  statesman  can  afford  to  omit  the  common  peo¬ 
ple  from  his  calculation.  They  are  the  very  root 
and  core  of  society.  Kings  are  only  the  blossomings 
of  the  national  tree.  The  roof  is  more  dependent 
upon  the  foundation  than  the  foundation  upon  the 
roof.  Nearly  all,  if  not  quite  all,  the  movements 
which  have  changed  the  thinking,  and  determined 
the  new  courses  of  the  world,  have  been  upward,  not 
downward.  The  great  revolutionists  have  generally 
been  cradled  in  mangers,  and  gone  through  rough 
discipline  in  early  life.  Civilization  is  debtor  to 
lowly  cradles ;  and  unknown  mothers  hold  a  heavy 
account  against  the  world.  This  is  God’s  plan  of 
uniting  all  classes  of  the  family  of  man. 

Christ  worked  in  harmony  with  the  spirit  of  this 
plan.  People  that  were  rejected  on  every  side  be¬ 
came  his  servants,  and  brethren,  and  friends.  Even 
bad  women  (often  so  near  being  the  best !)  were 
drawn  towards  him,  as  if  they  could  get  from  him 
“  the  piece  that  was  lost.”  Some  of  the  most  touch¬ 
ing  scenes  in  his  life  relate  to  such  women.  One  of 
those  scenes,  if  nothing  else  remained,  is  enough  to 
bind  the  world’s  heart  to  him  forever.  The  occasion 
was  one  which  brought  out  the  characteristics  of  the 
interlocutors  very  sharply.  A  Pharisee  had  asked 


ECCE  DEUS. 


96 

Christ  to  break  bread  with  him,  and  “  a  woman  in 
the  city,  which  was  a  sinner,  when  she  knew  that 
Jesus  sat  at  meat  in  the  Pharisee’s  house,  brought  an 
alabaster  box  of  ointment  ”  —  probably  all  she  had 
in  the  world — “and  stood  at  his  feet  behind  him, 
weeping,  and  began  to  wash  his  feet  with  tears,  and 
did  wipe  them  with  the  hairs  of  her  head,  and  kissed 
his  feet,  and  anointed  them  with  the  ointment,”  —  so 
near  being  an  angel  was  this  poor  sinning  sister ! 
Never  was  modesty  so  modest,  —  stood  at  his  feet , — 
stood  behind  him,  —  stood  behind  him  vjeefting:  only 
God  can  interpret  the  full  meaning  of  such  tears. 
The  cold-eyed  Pharisee  saw  nothing  in  her  but  a 
“  sinner ;  ”  Christ  saw  a  woman,  flesh  and  blood  of 
his  own  mother,  and  his  great  gentle  heart  was 
shaken  with  unutterable  pity.  The  Pharisee  saw  his 
opportunity ;  like  all  little  natures,  he  knew  more 
of  logic  than  of  philanthropy,  and  instantly  he  set  up 
this  argument :  u  This  man,  if  he  were  a  prophet, 
would  have  known  who  and  what  manner  of  woman 
this  is  that  toucheth  him,  for  she  is  a  sinner.”  Men 
are  often  the  victims  of  their  own  logic,  —  always, 
indeed,  when  logic  leads  away  from  love.  The  eye 
that  saw  the  “  woman  ”  under  the  “  sinner,”  saw  the 
sneering  sceptic  under  the  observing  but  silent  host. 
That  eye  read  the  Pharisee  through  and  through. 
“Simon,”  said  Jesus,  “I  have  somewhat  to  say  unto 
thee.  There  was  a  certain  creditor  which  had  two 
debtors ;  the  one  owed  five  hundred  pence,  the  other 
fifty,  and  when  they  had  nothing  to  pay,  he  frankly 
forgave  them  both  :  tell  me,  therefore,  which  of  them 
will  love  him  most?”  Simon  liked  a  case  of  this 


THE  CALLING  OF  MEN. 


97 


kind  ;  it  was  not  above  his  intellectual  stature,  though 
he  little  knew  its  moral  compass.  “  I  suppose,”  he 
answered,  “  that  he  to  whom  he  forgave  most.”  The 
answer  was  right;  the  appeal  was  overwhelming. 
“Simon,  seest  thou  this  woman?  I  entered  into 
thine  house,  thou  gavest  me  no  water  for  my  feet,  but 
she  hath  washed  my  feet  with  tears,  and  wiped  them 
with  the  hairs  of  her  head  ;  thou  gavest  me  no  kiss, 
but  this  woman,  since  the  time  I  came  in,  hath  not 
ceased  to  kiss  my  feet ;  my  head  with  oil  thou  didst 
not  anoint,  but  this  woman  hath  anointed  my  feet 
with  ointment.  Wherefore,  I  say  unto  thee,  her  sins, 
which  are  many,  are  forgiven,  for  she  loved  much  ; 
but  to  whom  little  is  forgiven,  the  same  loveth  little.” 
The  man  that  spake  these  words  ought  to  be  dear 
to  the  world’s  heart  forever !  The  calm  tone,  the 
beaming  eye,  the  inimitable  pathos,  all  brought  to 
bear  upon  the  stony  Pharisee,  with  his  paltry  notions 
of  propriety  !  It  is  truly  better  to  fall  into  the  hands 
of  God,  than  into  the  hands  of  men.  A  case  like  this 
does  more  to  confirm  the  Godhead  of  Jesus  Christ, 
than  can  be  done  by  a  sanhedrim  of  theologians, 
armed  with  the  genius  and  the  lore  of  ages.  We 
have  in  it  all  the  God  we  need.  The  Being  that  saw 
the  woman  in  the  sinner,  and  the  sinner  in  the  wo¬ 
man,  that  penetrated  the  dishonorable  thoughts  of  the 
haughty  self-idolater,  and  pronounced  the  contrite 
woman  forgiven,  comes  before  the  world  with  claims 
which  God  only  could  sustain.  In  the  presence  of 
such  an  incident,  all  verbal  criticism  becomes  con¬ 
temptible  ;  the  stormed  and  grateful  heart  exclaims, 
Ecce  homo  !  Ecce  Deus  ! 

5 


98 


ECCE  DKUS. 


Multiply  this  simple  story  by  the  number  of  u  sin¬ 
ners  ”  in  the  world  ;  let  every  one  of  those  sinners  love 
as  much  as  this  poor  woman  loved,  and  then  say  if 
ever  king  reigned  over  such  an  empire  as  that  in  which 
Christ  would  be  enthroned?  The  bond  of  union  is  es¬ 
sentially  personal.  The  love  of  each  heart  is  lavished 
upon  him.  All  low  motives  are  expelled  by  a  pure, 
intense,  ever-deepening  love.  In  this  way,  too,  we  see 
light  streaming  upon  an  overshadowing  and  most  ap¬ 
palling  mystery,  viz.,  the  comparative  relation  of  sin 
to  the  happiness  of  the  universe,  when  the  divine  pur¬ 
pose  is  completed.  The  principle  laid  down  by  Christ 
is  that  they  who  have  had  much  forgiven,  love  much, 
and  that  there  is  joy  in  the  presence  of  the  angels  of 
God  over  one  sinner  that  repenteth,  more  than  over 
ninety  and  nine  just  persons  that  need  no  repentance 
Who  can  measure  that  “  more”?  Sin  is  thus  made  tc> 
have  its  compensations.  The  twice-born  man  shall 
be  a  double  joy  in  his  Father’s  house.  Sin  shall  not 
be  all  loss.  Even  for  sin’s  sake,  heaven  shall  be  filled 
with  a  sweeter  and  gladder  hallelujah. 

By  going  to  the  lowest  stratum  of  human  nature 
Christ  gave  a  new  idea  of  the  value  of  man.  He  built 
a  kingdom  out  of  the  refuse  of  society.  To  compare 
small  things  with  great,  it  has  been  pointed  out  by 
Lord  Macaulay  that  in  an  English  cathedral  there  is 
an  exquisite  stained  window  which  was  made  by  an 
apprentice  out  of  the  pieces  of  glass  which  had  been 
rejected  by  his  master,  and  it  was  so  far  superior  to 
every  other  in  the  church  that,  according  to  tradition, 
the  envious  artist  killed  himself  with  vexation.  All 
the  builders  of  society  had  rejected  the  u  sinners,”  and 


THE  CALLING  OF  MEN. 


99 


made  the  painted  window  of  the  “  righteous.”  A  new 
builder  came ;  his  plan  was  original,  startling,  revolu¬ 
tionary  ;  his  eye  was  upon  the  contemned  material ; 
he  made  the  first  last  and  the  last  first,  and  the  stone 
which  the  builders  rejected  he  made  the  head  stone  of 
the  corner.  He  always  specially  cared  for  the  rejected 
stone.  Men  had  always  cared  for  the  great,  the  beau¬ 
tiful,  the  righteous ;  it  was  left  to  Christ  to  care  for 
sinners.  When  Eumasus  was  reproached  with  having 
invited  a  beggar  to  the  palace  of  Ulysses,  he  did  not 
care  formally  to  deny  the  charge,  but  met  it  with 
scorn,  as  if  the  very  absurdity  of  the  idea  was  its  best 
refutation  —  mat/bv  oux  av  ng  xultoi,  tqvZovtu  e  wvtov  ; 
this  inquiry  showing  that  he  did  not  rank  himself  with 
fools.  Even  the  gods  were  attracted  by  beauty,  as  in 
the  case  of  Ganymede  — 

“Fairest  of  mortals;  him  the  gods  on  score  of  beauty 
crowned.” 

The  general  tone  of  history  was  such  as  to  give  Christ’s 
method  an  appearance  of  the  most  grotesque  absurdity  ; 
he  began  where  no  other  worker  began  ;  precedent,  the 
terror  of  secondary  men,  was  against  him  ;  and  his 
contemporaries  either  pitied  or  despised,  saying  with 
much  bitter  meaning  in  their  tone,  “  This  man  re- 
ceiveth  sinners  and  eateth  with  them.”  The  unity  of 
the  mystery  is  here  apparent.  He  himself,  on  the  one 
side,  began  at  the  highest,  and  on  the  other,  at  the  low¬ 
est,  yet  the  Child  of  the  manger  came  to  be  King  of 
the  world.  Society  is  moved  by  its  extremes.  Christ 
showed  the  value  of  the  extreme  that  from  immemo¬ 
rial  time  had  been  despised. 


IOO 


ECCE  DEUS. 


It  is  remarkable  that  Christ  is  never  said  to  have 
called  a  woman  to  follow  him  as  he  called  the  disci¬ 
ples  ;  and  quite  as  remarkable  that,  so  far  as  the  evi 
dence  goes,  no  woman  ever  spoke  a  word  against  him, 
while  many  women  were  las-t  at  the  cross,  and  earliest 
at  the  sepulchre.  It  seems  as  though  he  had  assumed 
that  the  womanly  side  of  human  nature  would  not 
require  any  calling ;  that  the  heart  of  woman  would 
instinctively  welcome  him  as  the  solution  of  all  diffi¬ 
culties,  the  sum  of  all  charms,  the  sovereign  of  frail 
and  needy  creatures  who  have  immense  capacity  of 
suffering,  but  little  satisfaction  in  the  results  of  mere 
logic.  Christ  was  emphatically,  uniquely,  the  seed 
of  the  woman.  What  woman  could  reject  her  own 
son?  Does  not  every  woman  look  with  intensely  hope¬ 
ful  love  upon  the  son  of  her  womb?  He  will  be  her 
comfort,  her  song,  her  saviour  ;  she  no  longer  lives  but 
in  him  and  for  him  ;  through  him  sne  interprets  the 
future,  and  for  his  sake  takes  a  kinder  view  of  all 
mankind.  Christ  was  born  to  every  woman.  Men 
required  to  be  called,  women  only  to  be  attracted. 
Women  had  but  to  see  him  in  order  to  clain  him  as 
the  fairest  among  ten  thousand,  and  altogether  lovely ; 
to  recognize  him  as  the  tenderest  and  wisest  friend  of 
womanhood.  They  needed  no  call.  The  dew  waits 
for  no  voice  to  call  it  to  the  sun.  Few  women  ever  go 
to  Christ  through  the  medium  of  mere  doctrine.  They 
live  beyond  the  cold  propositional  region.  The  dew 
finds  its  way  up  to  the  sun  without  knowing  anything 
of  the  laws  of  motion  or  the  mysteries  of  light,  and 
womanly  hearts  go  up  to  Christ  often  knowing  little 
of  objective  theology,  yet  wise  because  inspired  and 


THE  CALLING  OF  MEN. 


IOl 


guided  by  the  love  which  is  the  elect  interpreter  of 
God.  God  is.  love,  and  by  her  superior  capacity  of 
love  woman  is  so  much  nearer  God  than  man  can  ever 
be.  It  is  hardly  to  be  wondered  at  that  millions  of 
Christians  even  now  feel  that  heaven  itself  requires  the 
distinctive  presence  of  the  womanly  element,  and  ex¬ 
press  the  feeling  by  addressing  Mary  as  the  mother  of 
God.  If  Protestantism  were  less  technical  and  more 
human,  it  would  hesitate  before  condemning  the  feel¬ 
ing  which  dictates  this  startling  appellation.  The  fact 
may  be  that  God  is  more  human  than  traditional  doc¬ 
trinism  has  yet  dared  to  conceive.  We  think  of  hu¬ 
manity  too  exclusively  by  the  flesh.  It  is  to  be  remem¬ 
bered  that  the  body  is  the  lesser  portion  of  man,  and 
that  we  speak  rightly  of  the  human  mind  as  well  as 
the  hun  an  body.  It  is  on  the  mind  side  that  we  ap¬ 
proach  God,  through  the  mind  side  that  we  communi¬ 
cate  with  God,  and  on  the  mind  side  that  we  resemble 
God.  In  this  sense  God  is  more  human,  or  man  more 
divine,  than  has  yet  been  authenticated  by  the  councils 
of  Christendom.  God  is  not  declared  to  be  power, 
but  he  is  declared  to  be  love ;  whoever,  therefore,  can 
love  most  is  most  like  God.  It  is  not  to  the  point  to 
argue  that  men  excel  women  in  pure  intellectual  force  ; 
even  allowing  as  a  conceit  what  we  cannot  concede  as 
a  fact,  it  amounts  to  nothing  in  this  case.  A  lion  is 
stronger,  an  eagle  swifter,  than  man,  yet  it  is  not  to 
"be  inferred  that  they  are  nearer  God  than  man  is ;  but 
God  is  love,  and  nearness  to  him  in  soul-quality  is  a 
question  of  love.  Nor  is  it  to  the  point  that  women 
have  fallen  into  great  depths  of  sin ;  the  greater  the 
depth  the  greater  the  nature.  If  God  himself  could 


102  , 


ECCE  DEUS. 


sin,  all  othei  sinners  would  be  forgotten  in  the  dark¬ 
ness  of  the  stupendous  apostasy. 

Christ’s  tender  recognition  of  little  children  was  part 
of  his  Call.  How  could  he  call  them,  but  by  taking 
them  up  in  his  arms  and  blessing  them?  They  could 
not  understand  his  words,  but  they  understood  his 
smile,  as  flowers  understand  the  morning.  He  blessed 
them !  Fathers  know  a  little  of  the  meaning,  and 
mothers  a  little  more  ;  as  for  other  critics,  they  may 
not  know  this  mystery.  He  said,  “  Of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  ;  ”  as  if  heaven  contained  all  youth, 
and  beauty,  "and  trustfulness.  “  He  took  them  up  in 
his  arms  ;  ”  and  they  are  there  still.  The  u  Son  of 
Man  ”  alone  knows  the  nature  of  a  little  child.  As 
the  Founder  of  a  permanent  monarchy  Christ  knew 
the  value  of  young  life.  What  is  a  king  if  he  be  not 
supported  by  the  passionate  love  of  the  national  heart? 
Passive  allegiance  is  a  diplomatic  euphemism  which 
signifies  the  extinction  of  loyalty. 


io3 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

CHRIST  REJECTING  MEN. 

WHEN  Christ  said  he  came  not  to  call  the  right 
eous,  but  sinners  to  repentance,  there  must  have 
been  a  strong  ironical  tone  in  his  pronunciation  of  the 
word  “  righteous.”  Most  truly  we  cannot  infer  from 
his  reported  words  who  the  righteous  were,  if  there 
were  such.  Not  the  Pharisees  certainly,  as  was  most 
impressively  shown  upon  one  memorable  occasion. 
A  Pharisee  had  invited  Christ  to  dinner,  and  when 
the  guests  were  ranged  in  order  Christ  openly  said, 
u  Now  do  ye  Pharisees  make  clean  the  outside  of  the 
cup  and  the  platter,  but  your  inward  part  is  full  of 
ravening  and  wickedness ;  ye  fools,  did  not  he  that 
made  that  which  is  without,  make  that  which  is 
within  also?”  This  sentence  excludes  the  Pharisees 
from  the  category  of  u  the  righteous.”  And  the 
Scribes  were  associated  with  them,  for  on  the  same 
occasion,  addressing  them  jointly,  he  said  — u  Woe 
unto  you,  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  hypocrites !  tor  ye 
are  as  graves  which  appear  not,  and  the  men  that 
walk  over  them  are  not  aware  of  them.”  This  denun¬ 
ciation,  which  in  modern  days  and  Western  lands 
would  be  deemed  an  unpardonable  abuse  of  hospital¬ 
ity,  could  not  fail  to  make  a  deep  impression  upon  the 
minds  of  the  guests ;  this  was  clear  from  a  singular 


104  ECCE  DEUS. 

incident.  One  of  the  lawyers  brought  the  matter  to 
an  issue :  “  Master,”  said  he,  “  thus  speaking  thou 
reproachest  us  also.”  The  answer  was  probably  much 
clearer  and  fuller  than  the  lawyer  expected  ;  the  spirit 
of  jo  dgment  asserted  itself  in  the  boldest  manner  in 
Jesus  Christ:  “Woe  unto  you  also,  ye  lawyers!  for 
ye  lade  men  with  burdens  grievous  to  be  borne,  and 
ye  yourselves  touch  not  the  burdens  with  one  of  your 
Angers.  Woe  unto  you  !  for  ye  build  the  sepulchres 
of  the  prophets,  and  your  fathers  killed  them.  .  .  . 
Woe  unto  you,  lawyers  !  for  ye  have  taken  away  the 
key  of  knowledge  :  ye  entered  not  in  yourselves,  and 
them  that  -were  entering  in  ye  hindered.”  This  exas¬ 
perating  talk  p  roduced  a  most  singular  effect  upon  the 
guests.  Probabh  they  had  never  come  so  decidedly 
in  contact  with  this  new  spirit  of  judgment  before, 
and  as  they  were  all  together  at  the  time  they  felt  the 
stimulus  of  association,  and  being  stung  by  the  rebukes 
of  an  uncourteous  stranger,  “  they  began  to  urge  him 
vehemently,  and  to  provoke  him  to  speak  of  many 
things:  laying  wait  for  him,  and  seeking  to  catch 
something  out  of  his  mouth,  that  they  might  accuse 
him.”  There  is  a  good  deal  underlying  all  this. 
They  might  think  that  they  had  caught  Christ  at  a 
disadvantage.  Was  he  inflamed  with  wine?  How 
could  he  who  came  to  call  men  to  himself  encounter 
some  of  the  leading  classes  of  society  with  language 
so  repulsive?  They  could  not  comprehend  this  new 
spirit  of  judgment  which  had  come  to  hold  its  assize 
among  men,  and  in  their  ignorance  they  sought  to 
drive  judgment  into  indiscrimination,  and  thus  deprive 
it  of  the  moral  element.  They  found  nothing  on  the 


CHRIST  REJECTING  MEN. 


I05 


side  of  his  love,  so  the  hungry  wolves  ran  round  to 
the  side  of  his  anger,  and  waited  savagely  for  prey. 

Where,  then,  were  the  “  righteous”?  The  fact  is, 
that  a  man  was  truly,  not  notionally  or  reputedly, 
righteous  just  in  proportion  as  he  felt  himself  to  be  a 
sinner.  There  is  many  a  paradox  in  Christ’s  teach¬ 
ing,  and  this  is  one  of  the  number.  He  set  forth  this 
doctrine  most  graphically  by  telling  of  two  men  who 
went  up  to  the  same  temple,  at  the  same  hour,  for  the 
same  purpose.  One  was  a  conceited  self-idolater, 
appraising  himself  very  highly,  the  other  was  a  self- 
abased  and  earnest  suppliant,  who  could  find  no  better 
term  for  himself  than  “  sinner,”  —  no  other  term  so 
deeply  probed  his  consciousness  or  expressed  the  tone 
and  spirit  of  his  life.  The  sequel  showed  that  in 
God’s  view  the  “  righteous  ”  man  was  the  “  sinner,” 
and  the  “sinner”  the  “righteous”  man.  Such  sin¬ 
ners  were  the  only  men  who  could  really  hear  Christ ; 
the  other  were  so  impenetrably  fortressed  in  their  own 
conceit  that  no  call  could  be  loud  enough  to  be  audi¬ 
ble  above  the  thunder  of  their  self-applause.  Their 
sin  was  self-involution  and  self-satisfaction.  They 
were  their  own  Alpha  and  Omega.  There  was  no 
way  of  moving  them  but  by  calling  other  men  away 
from  them.  They  must  be  isolated  until  they  felt 
their  position,  and  raised  the  signal  of  distress. 
Christianity  thus  became  indirectly  a  most  powerful 
appeal  to  the  very  men  whom  it  had  apparently  left 
in  all  the  paltry  splendor  of  an  artificial  righteousness. 
By  calling  other  men  from  them  and  leaving  them 
utterly  alone,  their  very  selfishness  became  intolerable, 
and  through  the  mere  stress  of  circumstances  they 


io  6 


ECCE  DEUS. 


were  driven  to  inquiry  and  consideration.  Extremes 
are  their  own  cure. 

On  another  occasion  Christ  took  an  effectual 
method  of  showing  who  the  righteous  were.  A  num¬ 
ber  of  hollow-hearted  men,  who  mistook  an  interest 
in  criminal  statistics  for  philanthropy,  as  all  hollow- 
hearted  men  are  prone  to  do,  brought  an  unhappy 
woman  before  him  to  be  judged.  They  had  witnessed 
many  displays  of  the  new  spirit  of  judgment  in  vari¬ 
ous  directions,  but  here  was  a  case  which  would  test 
the  moral  quality  of  that  spirit.  With  infinite  delicacy 
he  said,  “  Let  him  that  is  without  sin  cast  the  first 
stone.,,  This  was  not  only  a  new  spirit  of  judgment, 
but  a  new  spirit  of  administration.  The  guardians 
of  virtue  were  henceforth  to  be  virtuous.  Judgment 
was  henceforth  not  to  be  learned  from  a  statute-book, 
but  from  the  inspired  heart.  Penalty  was  to  be  an 
outburst  of  moral  indignation.  Without  repealing 
the  Mosaic  law,  or  interfering  with  criminal  prosecu 
tions,  he  threw  the  inquirers  upon  a  principle  which 
carried  its  own  justification.  The  answer  fell  upon 
them  like  the  fires  of  judgment,  and  man  by  man  they 
slunk  from  the  place,  until  the  sinner  and  the  Saviour 
were  left  alone.  The  difference  between  the  woman 
and  the  prosecutors  was  that  her  sin  was  known  and 
theirs  was  hidden,  but  the  new  spirit  of  judgment 
showed  that  concealment  was  henceforth  an  impossi¬ 
bility.  The  Saviour  gave  the  “sinner”  another 
chance  of  life  ;  he  called  her  to  himself  by  kindling 
a  new  hope  in  her  despairing  heart.  A  new  hope  is 
equivalent  to  a  new  birth. 

The  “  sinners”  alone,  we  have  said,  could  hear  the 


CHRIST  REJECTING  MEN.  IO^ 

call  of  Christ.  This  is  true  in  civilization  as  well  as  in 
religion.  Whoever  has  a  new  idea  to  propose  will  find 
no  disposition  to  listen  to  it  on  the  part  of  those  who 
are  satisfied  with  the  old  ideas  or  taken  up  with  their 
own  notions.  He  must  seek  prepared  men,  and  de¬ 
liver  his  call  to  them.  They  are  conscious  of  a  want ; 
they  are  dissatisfied  with  the  past ;  they  look  yearn¬ 
ingly  and  wonderingly  towards  the  future.  Christ 
came  with  the  cry  of  repentance  ;  a  cry  which  by  its 
very  nature  divided  society  and  developed  strong  feel¬ 
ing  on  both  sides.  The  cry  “  Repent  ”  was  a  call  to 
change  the  very  springs  of  life.  It  implied  —  indeed 
it  expressed  —  a  heavy  charge  against  society.  It 
simply  meant  —  You  are  wrong —  wrong>  in  heart, 
wrong  in  life  —  and  you  must  change  if  you  would 
enter  the  kingdom  which  is  at  hand.  Such  a  call  of 
necessity  set  men  thinking  as  they  had  never  thought 
before.  It  put  men  on  the  defensive.  It  did  not  give 
them  an  opportunity  of  saying  guilty  or  not  guilty, 
but  assumed  the  guilt  and  demanded  penitence.  In¬ 
stantly  the  “  righteous  ”  set  themselves  against  it. 
They  massed  themselves  as  an  army,  and  obstinately 
contested  the  revolutionary  idea.  Hardly  any  other 
cry  could  have  produced  such  an  effect  upon  them  ;  it 
was  intended  to  work  self-conviction,  but  failing  in 
this  it  necessarily  consolidated  the  moral  conservatism 
of  the  unbelievers.  It  was  to  be  expected  that  a  great 
division  would  follow  the  cry,  and  that  henceforth  a 
marked  line  wrould  show  the  space  occupied  by  those 
“  which  trusted  in  themselves  that  they  were  righteous 
and  despised  others.”  The  call  of  Christ  was  the 
instrument  of  election,  pointing  out  those  upon  whom 


io8 


ECCE  DEUS. 


it  could  produce  the  intended  effect.  All  calls  to 
other  life,  good  or  bad,  have  in  them  of  necessity  an 
effective  principle,  simply  because  they  separate  and 
classify  men.  Christ  acted  in  this  matter  precisely  as 
sensible  men  act  under  similar  conditions ;  the}'-  turn 
from  those  who  do  not  want  them,  and  work  with 
those  who  appreciate  their  purpose.  The  nature  of 
the  call  determines  the  nature  of  the  society  that  will 
be  summoned  by  it.  Christ  uttered  a  call  which 
plainly  said  that  men  needed  to  change  their  course, 
and  it  was  natural  that  such  men  alone  should  draw 
around  him,  that  they  might  learn  all  that  he  meant 
with  reference  to  their  future.  To  any  man  conscious 
of  want,  or  sin,  or  ignorance,  the  call  to  repentance  is 
the  very  call  mo§t  suited  to  him.  Instead  of  throwing 
him  into  despair  it  gives  him  hope  ;  it  shows  that  an 
opportunity  is  still  left,  and  that  one  man  at  least  is 
willing  to  point  out  how  that  opportunity  may  be 
turned  to  advantage.  The  call  of  Jesus  Christ  means 
that  no  man  need  sit  shivering  upon  the  ruin  he  has 
wrought,  but  that  he  may  arise  and  rebuild  and  enter 
into  rest. 

/ 

Imagine  the  effect  of  a  contrary  cry.  Instead  of 
u  Repent,”  say  u  Be  satisfied.”  Sides  would  then 
have  changed.  The  men  who  were  consciously 
wrong,  or  who  had  dreamed  of  a  brighter  day,  could 
not  have  accepted  the  words  as  expressing  a  right 
direction,  but  the  righteous  would  have  pronounced 
the  speaker  an  “  excellent  Daniel.”  The  call  to 
repent  brought  to  the  speaker  exactly  what  he 
wanted,  —  the  most  susceptible,  self-distrustful,  and 
unsophisticated  men  of  the  time.  When  any  of  the 


CHRIST  REJECTING  MEN. 


IO9 

so-called  “  righteous  ”  did  hear  his  words,  and  were 
disposed  to  inquire  the  terms  of  fellowship  with  him, 
Christ  was  invariably  severe  in  stating  the  conditions. 
He  did  not  by  any  means  give  them  a  cordial  wel¬ 
come.  By  any  ordinary  reformer  they  would  have 
been  considered  invaluable  acquisitions ;  having  edu¬ 
cation,  money,  influence,  and  all  those  advantages 
which  usually  give  a  new  idea  a  bold  and  command¬ 
ing  aspect.  By  Jesus  Christ  they  were  regarded  in 
no  such  light.  He  knew  that  they  were  but  so  many 
flattering  varieties  of  a  man’s  self  \  and  by  so  much  as 
self  was  uppermost  was  a  man  unfit  for  the  kingdom 
of  heaven.  Consequently  he  was  so  cautious  as  to  be 
almost  stern,  so  exacting  as  to  be  almost  oppressive. 
So,  at  least,  it  must  have  appeared  to  the  righteous,  as 
they  saw  the  “  gate  ”  narrowing  as  they  approached 
it,  and  heard  his  voice  in  its  most  incisive  tone  say¬ 
ing,  “  Strait  is  the  gate,  and  narrow  is  the  way.”  So 
strait  was  the  gate  that  no  man,  could  take  any  ap¬ 
pendices  with  him  ;  all  decorative  matter  was  to  be 
left  outside ;  only  the  man,  without  background  or 
surrounding,  could  be  admitted.  One  conspicuous 
example  will  occur  to  all  who  have  read  the  life.  A 
very  “  righteous  ”  young  man  came  to  him  with  an 
eager  inquiry  :  the  young  man  made  out  that  he 
was  nothing  less  than  an  embodiment  of  the  Deca¬ 
logue,  —  he  had  gathered  the  very  elements  of  his 
life  at  Sinai.  Surely  Christ  could  not  resist  this 
impersonation  of  the  Ten  Commandments.  They 
were  written  on  tables  of  stone,  but  here  was  a 
table  of  flesh.  Christ  was  actually  more  exacting 
with  this  young  man  —  required  more  of  him  than 


no 


ECCE  DEUS. 


he  required  of  the  publican,  the  adulteress,  and  the 
tlnef.  Why  not?  Tall  men  can  reach  higher  than 
shoit  men.  Others  brought  nothing  but  sin,  this 
man  brought  the  Decalogue  without  (as  he  ima¬ 
gined)  a  wrinkle  or  a  stain.  What  wonder,  then, 
seeing  that  strait  is  the  gate  and  narrow  is  the  way, 
that  Christ  should  answer,  “  Go  and  sell  all  that  thou 
hast,  and  give  it  unto  the  poor,  and  follow  me”? 
The  man  had  grown  prosperous,  with  all  his  com¬ 
mandment-keeping,  and  now  he  required  to  be  pulled 
sharply  up  on  the  side  of  his  wealth  to  see  whether 
the  commandments  or  the  money  had  the  greater  hold 
upon  him.  There  was  no  other  method  of  meeting 
the  case.  The  fortress  of  self  must  be  stormedt 
Every  prop  must  be  struck  down,  every  link  broken, 
01  he  must  remain  outside  the  strait  gate.  The 
young  man  knew  not  that  the  gates  to  all  great  king¬ 
doms  are  strait,  and  that  the  ways  are  narrow ;  he 
had  thought  much  of  the  kingdom,  but  nothing  of  the 
way.  This  instance  certainly  shows  that  Christ  did 
not  care  to  give  merely  numerical  strength  to  his 
cause.  With  him,  as  with  all  true  calculators,  the 
question  was  not  one  of  numbers  but  of  hearts.  One 
heart  under  the  inspiration  of  love  was  of  immeasu- 
rably  greater  value  than  any  number  governed  by  the 
shifting  policy  of  the  hour.  The  /  am,  not  the  7 
have,  was  Christ’s  standard  of  valuation.  How  then 
could  any  man  who  had  “  great  possessions  ”  recon¬ 
cile  himself  to  settlement  in  Christ’s  society?  The 
thing  was  impossible.  The  outside  was  greater  than 
t  ie  inside,  so  a  catastrophe  was  inevitable.  Manifest- 


CHRIST  REJECTING  MEN. 


Ill 


ly  the  young  man  could  not  move  through  riches  to 
Christ,  though  many  a  man  has  moved  through  Christ 
to  riches.  There  is  nothing  in  Christ  to  prevent  a 
man  having  “  a  hundredfold  more  in  the  present  life,” 
but  much  in  the  present  life  to  hinder  a  man  having 
Christ.  To-day  this  fact  is  illustrated  on  an  extended 
scale  ;  most  of  the  rich  men  who  are  now  in  Christ’s 
society  came  to  him  when  they  were  poor.  It  is 
difficult,  from  so  narrow  an  observation  as  one  in¬ 
dividual  is  able  to  make,  to  pronounce  definitely  upon 
the  subject,  but  the  peril  of  censoriousness  may  be 
escaped  by  merely  putting  a  question,  —  How  many 
men  having  great  possessions  pass  the  strait  gate  set 
before  the  kingdom  of  heaven?  Does  the  spiritual  or 
the  material  exercise  the  keener  influence  upon  such 
men?  Is  the  expression  “  How  hardly  shall  they  that 
have  riches  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  !  ”  with 
or  without  application  to  the  men  of  to-day?  There 
is  nothing  in  the  constitution  of  the  Christian  king¬ 
dom  to  prevent  a  man  becoming  rich,  but  there  is 
much  in  wealth  to  keep  a  man  from  thinking  serious¬ 
ly  about  the  Christian  kingdom.  It  alters  a  man’s 
whole  relation  to  wealth,  taking  away  the  idea«pf 
mastery,  and  substituting  the  idea  of  stewardship,  dis¬ 
placing  the  notion  of  carnal  security  by  the  spirit  of 
Christ-like  bounty.  This  kingdom  necessarily  casts  out 
all  other  masteries,  declaring  to  all  men  as  they  seek 
admission,  “Ye  cannot  serve  God  and  mammon.”  In 
Christ’s  day,  too,  expensive  organizations  within  the 
church  were  unknown.  Christ  viewed  all  human  ne¬ 
cessity  in  the  light  of  God’s  immediate  Fatherly  good- 


1 12 


ECCE  DEUS. 


ness,  so  that  every  want  became  as  a  holy  place  where 
the  Father  met  the  dependent  child.  Money,  as  a  regu¬ 
lative  power  in  Christ’s  society,  was  not  known.  Christ 
had  no  institutionalism  to  support.  In  his  day  men 
gave  themselves,  not  a  guinea,  when  an  appeal  was 
made.  Love  had  not  then  found  out  that  it  could 
buy  itself  off  for  an  annual  subscription  ;  it  was  mad 
enough  to  toil  and  suffer  in  the  very  heat  of  the  day. 
Only  spiritual  insolvents  think  of  compounding  with 
God  for  a  guinea  when  they  owe  him  their  whole  life. 
When  Echepolus  bought  himself  off  from  the  war  by 
giving  Agamemnon  a  mare,  probably  Agamemnon 
made  a  good  bargain,  for  a  mare  might  be  more  use¬ 
ful  at  Troy  than  a  rich  and  heartless  poltroon ;  but 
proxies  should  not  be  allowed  in  the  spiritual  war. 
In  the  “brave  days”  of  the  first  disciples,  things  did 
not  shape  themselves  as  they  do  now. 

“  Then  none  was  for  a  party, 

Then  all  were  for  the  state, 

Then  the  great  man  helped  the  poor, 

And  the  poor  man  loved  the  great. 

Then  lands  were  fairly  portioned, 

Then  spoils  were  fairly  sold : 

The  Christians  were  like  brothers, 

In  the  brave  days  of  old.” 

In  giving  the  young  man  this  view  of  money,  Christ 
6ent  'him  away  “very  sorrowful.”  This  was  not 
without  peril  to  the  new  government.  The  young 
man,  in  trying  to  reconcile  himself  to  himself,  would 
have  a  narrow  escape  from  underrating  the  zeal  of 


CHRIST  REJECTING  MEN.  I  13 

those  who  had  fallen  in  with  such  apparently  ex¬ 
travagant  notions ;  and  as  no  man  in  a  low  moral 
condition  finds  it  easy  to  forgive  one  who  has  shown 
him  that  he  is  not  so  good  as  he  supposed  himself 
to  be,  the  young  man  might  seek  to  exalt  Moses  at 
the  expense  of  Christ.  It  was  necessary  that  Christ 
should  accept  all  such  risks.  He  could  not  build 
with  wood,  hay,  and  stubble,  as  he  was  erecting  a 
kingdom  which  was  to  be  tried  with  fire.  Thus  a 
universal  call  came  to  have  special  bearings,  accord¬ 
ing  to  special  circumstances,  and  out  of  this  fact 
rejected  men  began  to  weave  the  grossest  doctrinal 
slanders  respecting  the  partiality  of  Jesus  Christ  — 
slanders  from  which  his  name  is  still  suffering. 

This  was  natural.  Rejected  men  felt  themselves 
called  upon  to  set  up  a  theory  of  rejection,  and  the 
last  thing  which  that  theory  would  admit  would  be 
error  on  the  part  of  the  individual  himself.  Take  the 
case  of  the  young  rich  man  :  as  he  retired  from  Christ 
he  could  hardly  escape  the  tortures  of  the  most  pene¬ 
trating  and  solemn  reflection.  “  I  have  been  practi¬ 
cally  rejected,”  he  might  say ;  “  what  can  be  the 
reason?  From  my  youth  my  conduct  has  been  irre¬ 
proachable  ;  I  have  kept  the  law,  and  to-day  I  can 
defy  public  criticism  ;  yet  this  man  refuses  me  admis¬ 
sion  into  his  society  except  upon  extreme  and  indeed 
impracticable  conditions:  he  must  be  mad  or  in¬ 
sincere;  the  fault  is  with  him,  not  with  me.”  The 
man’s  mind  was  started  on  a  course  of  speculation, 
and  all  the  probabilities  are  that  his  speculation  could 
take  no  very  favorable  turn  in  regard  to  Christ.  He 


lI4 


ECCE  DEUS. 


would  have  his  own  way  of  representing  the  case  to 
his  friends  and  companions,  so  that,  while  Christ  was 
calling  men  to  himself  in  one  direction,  the  young 
man  would  be  at  the  head  of  a  counter-movement  in 
another.  His  representations  would  acquire  strength 
from  his  well-known  morality,  and  from  the  fact  that 
he  had  personally  sought  admission  into  Christ’s  king¬ 
dom.  In  this  way  the  Christian  idea  has  been  im¬ 
peded  by  misunderstanding  and  unworthy  men. 

Christ  had  different  methods  of  calling  men  —  al¬ 
ways,  however,  making  the  gate  straiter  and  straiter 
as  he  was  approached  by  the  “  righteous.”  To  the 
young  man  just  spoken  of  he  made  the  gate  very  strait 
on  the  side  of  property ;  to  a  certain  lawyer  he  made 
it  strait  on  the  side  of  the  two  great  commandments ; 
and  when  Nicodemus  came  to  him,  he  made  it  almost 
impassably  strait  by  saying,  u  Except  a  man  be  born 
again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God.”  He 
seems  to  have  given  three  different  answers  to  the 
same  question,  while  in  reality  he  was  but  varying  the 
answer  according  to  the  circumstances  of  the  inquirer. 
Take  the  case  of  Nicodemus :  to  have  said  to  him, 
“  Go  sell  all  that  thou  hast  and  give  to  the  poor,” 
would  not  have  met  the  mood  of  the  Rabbi’s  soul. 
Probably  he  could  have  accejoted  this  condition  of 
entrance  without  reducing  the  amount  of  self  which 
was  in  him  ;  his  property  might  be  small,  or  he  might 
hold  it  with  a  careless  hand,  so  that  its  surrender 
would  not  have  made  any  drain  upon  his  self-impor¬ 
tance.  So  also  to  have  said  to  the  rich  young  man, 
u  Ye  must  be  born  again,”  would  have  bewildered  a 


CHRIST  REJECTING  MEN. 


ll5 

youth  who  knew  little  or  nothing  of  such  deep  expres¬ 
sions  ;  he  must  be  moved  from  the  side  of  his  prop¬ 
erty.  The  master  in  Israel  must  be  met  in  his  own 
sphere,  and  talked  to  in  his  own  language  ;  the  world¬ 
ling  must  be  met  in  the  midst  of  his  estates,  and  talked 
to  in  the  language  of  the  market-place.  The  conclu¬ 
sion  will  be  the  same  in  both  cases.  Nicodemus,  when 
born  again,  will  be  willing  to  sell  all  that  he  has,  and 
the  young  man,  when  he  has  sold  all  his  property, 
will  be  born  again.  This  circumstance  shows  the 
necessity  of  discrimination  in  preaching  the  Gospel. 
Christ  addressed  men  in  different  ways ;  the  Church 
has  a  few  stereotyped  directions  for  all.  How  many 
of  the  Evangelical  preachers  in  England  dare  tell  a 
rich  young  man  that  he  must  sell  and  distribute  all  his 
property  as  the  condition  of  his  entrance  into  eternal 
life?  The  man  who  did  so  would  be  marked  as  a 
legalist,  though  he  would  be  a  most  Christ-like  preach¬ 
er.  There  are  some  who  aspire  to  be  more  orthodox 
than  Christ  himself ;  who,  by  insisting  upon  one  set 
of  technicalities,  throw  many  inquirers  into  despair, 
and  clothe  many  a  plain  truth  with  mystery. 

Take  the  doctrine  of  being  “  born  again  :  ”  Christ  did 
not  use  such  words  to  the  common  multitude,  but 
specially  to  “  a  master  in  Israel.”  He  never  used  them 
again,  so  far  as  we  can  learn  from  the  narrative  ;  yet, 
because  he  used  them  in  such  «an  exceptional  case, 
thousands  of  preachers  perplex  promiscuous  congre¬ 
gations  with  them  every  Sunday.  To  a  master  in 
Israel  they  were  precisely  adapted,  yet  it  does  not 
follow  that  a  direction  given  to  a  learned  man  in  a 
piivate  interview  is  to  be  proclaimed  to  the  common 


A1U  ECCE  DEUS. 

multitude.  Nicodemus  was  accustomed  to  metaphysi¬ 
cal  inquiry  ;  his  faculties  were  trained  to  analysis ;  and 
though  he  might  start  at  this  profoundly  spiritual 
answer,  given  by  a  man  whom  he  had  distinctively 
known  as  a  mighty  worker,  yet  he  could  meditate 
upon  it  as  in  harmony  with  the  genius  and  bent  of  his 
whole  intellectual  life.  That  life  it  immediately  as¬ 
sailed  —  not  the  man’s  character,  but  the  man’s  mental 
habitudes  and  moral  purposes.  His  inner  life  must 
start  from  a  new  point ;  so  radical  a  change  must  he 

undergo,  that  no  figure  can  so  expressively  denote  it 
as  a  new  birth. 

This  reference  to  regeneration  opens  the  question  of 
original  sin.  Many  inquirers  find  it  difficult  to  believe 
themselves  innately  bad,  simply  because  they  have  been 
told  that  such  a  belief  is  required  of  them.  No  man 
taught  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  commonly  so  called, 
so  impressively  as  Jesus  Christ,  and  yet  he  never  men¬ 
tioned  it  !  His  whole  scheme  was  founded  upon  the 
assumption  that  men  were  wrong.  Every  call  to  a 
new  point,  every  frown  upon  sin,  every  encourage¬ 
ment  of  well-doing,  meant  that  society  needed  regen¬ 
eration.  Men  may  come  upon  the  doctrine  of  original 
depravity  in  one  of  two  different  ways ;  for  example, 
t  iey  may  come  upon  it  as  a  dogma  in  theology.  .The 
first  thing  that  some  theologians  do  is  to  assail  human 
nature,  to  describe  it  as  being  covered  with  wounds 
and  bruises  and  putrefying  sores,  and  as  deserving 
nothing  but  eternal  burning.  Human  nature  resists 
this  as  a  slander :  it  says,  “  No  ;  I  have  good  impulses, 
upward  desires,  generous  emotions  towards  my  fellow- 
creatures  ;  I  resent  your  theological  calumnies.”  So 


CHRIST  REJECTING  MEN.  I  1 7 

much  for  the  first  method  of  approaching  the  doctrine. 
The  second  is  totally  unlike  it.  A  man,  for  example, 
heartily  accepts  Jesus  Christ,  studies  h.m  with  most 
passionate  devotion,  and  grows  daily  more  like  him  in 
ah  purity,  gentleness,  and  self-oblivion.  From  this  al¬ 
titude  he  looks  back  upon  his  former  self;  he  compares 
the  human  nature  with  which  he  started,  with  the 
auman  nature  he  has  attained,  and  involuntarily,  by 
the  sheer  necessity  of  the  contrast,  he  says,  “  I  was 
born  in  sin  and  shapen  in  iniquity.”  This  conclusion 
he  comes  to,  not  by  dogmatic  teaching,  but  by  dog¬ 
matic  experience  ;  what  he  never  could  have  under¬ 
stood  as  an  opinion  he  realizes  as  a  fact. 

Suppose  a  tree  to  be  conscious,  and  let  it  illustrate 
what  is  meant  by  growing  into  a  right  understanding 
of  this  hard  doctrine.  Tell  the  tree  in  April  that  it  is 
bare  and  ungainly  in  appearance  ;  very  barren  and 
naked  altogether.  The  tree  says,  “  Nay  :  I  am  rooted 
in  the  earth  ;  my  branches  are  strong ;  I  live  in  the 
light ;  I  drink  the  dew  ;  and  I  am  beautiful ;  the  winds 
rock  me,  and  many  a  bird  twitters  on  my  boughs.” 
This  is  its  April  creed.  Go  to  the  same  tree  after  it 
has  had  a  summer’s  experience  ;  it  has  felt  the  quick¬ 
ening  penetration  of  the  solar  fire,  quenched  its  thirst 
in  summer  showers,  felt  the  sap  circulating  through 
i;s  veins ;  the  leaves  have  come  out  on  branch  and 
Wig,  the  blossoms  have  blushed  and  bloomed  through 
long  days  of  light ;  fruit  has  been  formed,  and  mel¬ 
lowed  into  maturity.  Now  hear  the  tree  !  “  I  am  not 

what  I  was  in  April ;  my  very  identity  seems  to  be 
changed ;  when  men  called  me  bare  and  rugged  I  did 
not  believe  them  a  few  months  ago ;  now  I  see  what 


nS 


ECCE  DEUS. 


they  meant  —  their  verdict  was  sound:  I  thought  the 
April  light  very  beautiful,  but  it  is  nothing  to  the  blaz¬ 
ing  splendor  of  the  later  months  ;  I  liked  the  twitter  of 
the  spring  birds,  but  it  is  poor  compared  with  the  song 
of  those  that  came  in  June  :  I  feel  as  if  I  had  been  born 
again.”  The  parable  is  broad  enough  to  cover  this 
bewildering,  and  at  times  horrifying,  doctrine  of  hered¬ 
itary  depravity.  Men  cannot  be  in  April  what  they 
will  be  in  September.  Each  year  says  to  growing 
hearts,  u  I  have  many  things  to  say  unto  you,  but  ye 
cannot  bear  them  now.”  In  old  age  men  may  accept 
the  rejected  doctrines  of  their  youth.  Experience 
brings  us  round  many  a  rugged  hill,  and  gives  us 
better  views  of  condemned,  because  misunderstood, 
opinions.  The  point  to  be  observed  by  all  teachers 
of  Jesus  Christ’s  doctrine  is,  that  it  is  unnecessary 
to  force  recondite  theological  dogmas  upon  those 
who  approach  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Let  them 
enter  the  kingdom  on  the  sole  ground  of  their  love  to 
the  King,  and  their  subsequent  life  may  be  devoted  to 
doctrinal  study.  Jesus  Christ  was  constantly  correct¬ 
ing  the  errors  of  his  immediate  followers,  yet  they  were 
his  followers,  notwithstanding  their  errors.  Where 
love  is  ardent,  knowledge  will  be  attained  by  expe¬ 
rience. 

We  have  thus  seen  Christ  calling  men  and  Christ 
rejecting  men.  This  discrimination  gives  a  hint  of 
the  quality  of  the  society  which  he  aims  to  establish. 
Can  he  keep  those  whom  he  has  called? 


CHAPTER  IX. 


THE  CHURCH 


OR  what  purpose  did  Christ  call  men?  Were 


they  to  be  his  body-guard  during  his  presence 
upon  earth,  and  to  be  disbanded  after  his  ascension? 
or  were  they  to  be  confederated  into  a  perpetual  me¬ 
morial  of  his  earthly  mission?  This  brings  us  to  an 
analysis  of  the  ecclesiastical  idea. 

The  men  who  obeyed  the  call  were  classified  under 
a  special  and  most  sacred  designation.  They  were 
first  known  as  u  My  disciples  ;  ”  long  afterwards  “  be¬ 
lievers,”  “  saints,”  “  Christians  ”  became  synonymous 
and  interchangeable  terms,  the  whole  of  them  being 
frequently  expressed  by  one  word,  —  church.  This 
was  a  confederation  of  hearts,  founded  on  a  purely 
moral  basis,  subsisting  continually  upon  a  deep  love 
for  the  Christ  who  had  called  them  to  his  fellowship. 
The  root  idea  of  the  church  is  that  of  a  particular  re¬ 
lation  of  man  to  man,  originated  by  a  common  relation 
to  Jesus  Christ.  When  men  are  ardently  attached  to 
their  native  country,  they  are  related  to  one  another  as 
compatriots,  though  they  may  differ  upon  every  ques¬ 
tion  in  political  science.  It  is  the  same  in  the  church  ; 
attachment  to  Jesus  Christ  is  everything;  the  widest 
differences  upon  theology  may  exist,  but  no  doctrinal 
heresy  can  break  up  the  vital  and  eternal  union  of 


120 


ECCE  DEUS. 


souls  whidb  ;s  brought  about  by  an  all-absorbing  love 
for  Jesus  Cl 

It  may  appear  that  faith  is  an  almost  insignificant 
condition  of  membership  in  Christ’s  kingdom.  Not 
so,  however,  when  the  matter  is  carefully  considered. 
The  word  u  belief”  is  not  simple,  but  compound,  —  a 
term  most  inclusive  and  exacting.  Popularly  under¬ 
stood,  “  belief”  is  r up posed  to  denote  an  act  of  the 
mind  in  relation  to  statements  which  may  be  laid  be¬ 
fore  it:  as,  for  example,  a  man  believes  that  Milton 
wrote  “Paradise  lost,”  that  Columbus  discovered 
America,  or  that  a  ship  will  leave  Britain  for  Africa* 
upon  a  given  day.  But  such  a  belief  may  amount  to 
nothing  more  than  that  the  man  does  not  disbelieve 
these  statements ;  or  if  it  mean  that  he  has  examined 
the  evidence  for  himself,  yet  net  one  of  the  statements 
may  touch  his  deepest  nature.  It  would  give  him  no 
concern  to  know  that  Milton  wrote  the  “Iliad,”  and 
that  Homer  wrote  “  Paradise  Lost,”  or  that  the  ship 
in  question  is  not  going  to  Africa,  but  to  Asia.  The 
man  cannot  be  said  to  “  believe,”  in  any  deep  and  true 
sense  of  that  term.  Belief  means  more  than  any  act 
of  the  mere  understanding  can  ever  mean.  Religion 
is  not  so  much  an  appeal  to  the  intellectual  as  to  the 
moral  nature ;  this  is  true  of  all  religions,  but  pre¬ 
eminently  characteristic  of  Christianity.  The  intel¬ 
lectual  is  to  be  affected  through  *he  moral ;  the  mind 
is  not  to  lie  dormant,  it  is  to  be  brought  into  the  most 
active  service ;  but  the  law  is,  “  Thou  shalt  love  the 
Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  .  .  .  mind.”  Loving  with 
the  mind  is  the  idea  ;  the  very  intellect  is  to  be  turned 
into  an  organ  of  affection,  logic  itself  to  be  a-gknv  vy  itto 


THE  CHURCH. 


12* 


moral  fire  ;  it  is  not,  Thou  shalt  believe  with  thy  mind, 
but,  Thou  shalt  love  with  thy  mind  :  u  with  the  heart 
man  believeth  unto  righteousness.”  Belief  thus  be¬ 
comes  more  than  an  assent  to  a  set  of  notions.  It  car¬ 
ries  with  it  the  whole  man,  dominating  over  his  entire 
course;  in  fact,  it  is  more  even  than  this — it  is  life 
itself.  Whatever  a  man  lives  for  is  his  faith.  With¬ 
out  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  God.  What  then? 
Is  this  extraordinary?  It  is  one  of  the  veriest  com¬ 
monplaces  in  life  !  Without  faith  it  is  as  impossible  to 
please  man  as  to  please  God.  Give  any  man  to  un¬ 
derstand  that  he  has  lost  the  faith  of  his  compeers,  and 
he  will  realize  the  most  complete  humiliation  and  im¬ 
poverishment.  In  this  vital  sense  the  belief  of  man  is 
challenged  by  Jesus  Christ :  out  of  it  is  to  come  the 
whole  purpose  and  strength  of  life.  Christ  is  to  absorb 
affection,  and  his  will  is  to  be,  not  the  arbitrary,  but 
the  heart-elected  Master  everywhere.  A  man  may 
believe  that  a  house  has  been  robbed,  but  his  belief  is 
altogether  a  deeper  reality  when  he  is  given  to  under¬ 
stand  that  the  house  which  has  been  robbed  is  his  own. 
That  which  was  merely  a  piece  of  information  lodged 
in  the  mind  becomes  a  compelling  and  ruling  power 
in  the  life.  So  a  man  may  say  of  Jesus  Christ,  “  I 
believe  he  lived,  died,  and  rose  again,”  and  may  yet 
know  nothing  of  the  ruling  force  of  these  events  in 
his  heart.  The  facts  have  not  become  truths  to  him  ; 
they  are  outside  realities,  not  internal  and  undisputed 
sovereignties.  When  he  lives  by  them,  he  believes 
them  ;  when  he  believes  them,  he  lives  by  them  ;  when 
belief  and  life  are  synonymous  terms,  the  man  is  a 
member  of  the  church  of  Christ  —  his  name  is  written 

6 


122 


ECCE  DEUS. 


m  heaven.  lie  may  hold  the  most  extraordinary  con¬ 
clusions  in  speculative  theology,  but  he  cannot  be 
unchurched  by  metaphysics.  Where  the  love  is  right, 
the  formal  expression  of  notions  is  of  small  conse¬ 
quence.  A  man  may  keep  his  whole  self  and  accept 
all  technicalities  in  theology,  but  a  man  cannot  love 
without  giving  up  himself.  He  must  either  “sell  all 
he  has  and  give  it  to  the  poor,”  or  he  must  be  “  born 
again  ”  into  a  new  spirit  in  which  there  shall  be  no 
self,  and  then  he  is  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ. 

This  shows  the  inclusiveness  of  the  church.  The  sect 
can  hold  but  a  few,  the  church  may  comprehend  all. 
Christ  established  no  sect ;  he  founded  a  church.  To 
be  a  Christian,  it  is  not  necessary  to  be  a  scholastic 
theologian  ;  nor  is  it  necessary  to  choose  a  sectarian 
appellation  ;  nothing  is  necessary  but  perfect  love  of 
the  “  Beloved  Son.”  It  is  with  Christianity  as  with 
patriotism,  to  recur  to  an  illustration  :  love  of  country 
is  independent  of  love  of  party  ;  a  patriot  might  die 
for  his  sovereign  without  knowhrfg  the  subtle  degrees 
of  loyalty  which  are  indicated  by  party  nomenclature. 
Entrance  into  the  church  is  a  transaction  between  Jesus 
Christ  and  the  individual  heart ;  whoever  has  given  his 
love  to  God's  Son  is  a  member  of  the  church  :  whether, 
for  the  sake  of  convenience,  or  for  purposes  of  evan¬ 
gelization,  lie  may  join  a  sect,  it  is  for  him  to  consider, 
but  most  assuredly  he  is  in  Christ’s  church,  by  the  in¬ 
defeasible  and  all-comprehending  right  of  love.  The 
immortality  of  love  is  the  immortality  of  the  church. 
The  small  mud  huts  of  bigotry  will  be  submerged  by 
the  mighty  cataclysm  of  human  progress,  but  the 
church  founded  upon  a  rock  will  remain  above  the 
floods.  Love  is  the  security  of  the  church. 


THE  CHURCH. 


123 


Horror  at  what  is  called  heresy  may  be  accounted 
for  on  natural  grounds.  It  is  natural  to  venerate  the 
ancient;  it  is  natural,  too,  for  the  timid  to  dread  what 
is  speculative  or  experimental.  Men  hesitate  before 
cutting  down  a  bridge  which  bears  the  footprints  of 
many  generations,  though  a  better  bridge  may  be 
erected.  Man  cannot  easily  shake  off  the  associations 
of  time,  nor  is  it  desirable  that  he  should.  The  known 
has  certain  advantages  over  the  unknown.  In  business, 
in  politics,  in  medicine,  in  government,  and  most  of 
the  concerns  of  common  life,  the  same  regard  for  the 
past  prevails.  Changes,  it  is  thought,  always  involve 
more  or  less  of  risk  ;  and  though  results  may  be  right, 
processes  may  be  hazardous  and  difficult.  But  by  the 
noble  boldness  of  many  recent  inquirers,  even  change 
itself  is  enriched  with  hallowed  and  inspiring  associa¬ 
tions.  The  heretics  in  civilization,  not  to  speak  of 
theology,  have  done  most  for  the  world.  Timid  men 
cringed,  and  selfish  men  denounced,  when  the  heretics 
struck  openly  at  the  old  methods  of  doing  things.  They 
dreaded  changes  as  men  might  dread  floods  which 
carry  destruction  everywhere  :  — 

“  Expatiata  ruunt  per  apertos  fiumina  campos; 

Cumque  satis  arbusta  simul,  pecudesque,  virosque, 
Tectaque,  cumque  suis  rapiunt  penetralia  sacris.” 

Such  swollen  rivers  as  Ovid  describes  have  been 
greatly  dreaded  in  the  church,  as  if  no  promise  lay 
around  that  church  as  a  perpetual  defence.  Poor  but¬ 
tresses  can  be  made  of  paper  ;  but  who  can  storm  the 
fortresses  of  love  ?  It  is  forgotten,  besides,  how  great  a 
guarantee  of  security  has  been  provided  by  Christ  in 


124 


ECCE  DEUS. 


the  condition  requiring  discipleship  to  be  attested  by 
the  most  practical  service.  Jesus  Christ  and  his  disci¬ 
ples  were  not  a  band  of  contemplative  philosophers 
perambulating  in  the  cold  grandeur  of  isolation  from 
all  the  rough  world,  in  some  charmed  Lyceum  ;  they 
threaded  their  enlightening  and  healing  way  through 
the  thronging  multitudes  ;  and  daily  were  the  disciples 
shown  that  love  and  work  were  the  hemispheres  of  the 
Christian  life.  Love  was  not  a  mere  sentiment,  a  self- 
considering  and  self-satisfying  passion,  but  the  spring 
of  an  inclusive  and  intensely  practical  philanthropy. 
Christ  drilled  his  disciples  in  a  reverent  and  generous 
regard  for  the  human  body.  He  told  them  to  divide 
their  small  stock  of  provisions  in  the  desert  place  with 
the  five  thousand  strangers,  and  when  he  sketched  the 
proceedings  of  the  great  judicial  day  he  sent  men  to 
heaven  or  to  hell  according  as  they  had  been  philan¬ 
thropic  or  misanthropic  towards  himself  as  atomized 
by  the  least  of  his  brethren.  He  asked  no  man  what 
he  believed,  but  told  every  man  how  much  he  had 
done  to  mitigate  the  sufferings  of  good  men,  or  what 
opportunities  of  such  mitigation  had  been  neglected. 
Philanthropy  was  made  the  test  of  love  towards  God, 
for  who  can  love  God  without  loving  his  brother  also  ? 
This  is  a  valuable,  and  not  less  so  because  incidental, 
illustration  of  the  inseparableness  of  the  two  great 
commandments  of  the  law,  —  Love  God  and  love  thy 
neighbor.  The  love  of  man  comes  from  love  of  God, 
and  in  the  judgment  love  of  God  will  be  tried  by  love 
of  man.  The  apostle  John,  who  is  generally  supposed 
to  have  been  incomparably  amiable,  said  plainly,  that 
if  any  man  says  he  loves  God,  and  yet  hates  his  brother. 


THE  CHURCH. 


125 


he  is  a  liar;  and  no  liar  shall  enter  the  church:  he 
may  creep  into  the  sect,  but  shall  have  his  portion  in 
the  lake  which  burneth  with  tire  and  brimstone.  The 
true  church-member  can  never  become  a  heretic  in 
any  bad  sense  of  the  term  :  his  love  towards  God  and 
his  love  towards  man  keep  him  perfectly  balanced ; 
he  has  no  time  to  go  astray,  as  well  as  no  will.  The 
priest  and  the  Levite  will  probably  be  excommunicated, 
but  the  philanthropist  is  too  busy  with  wounded  and 
dying  humanity  to  be  in  any  danger  from  theological  rid¬ 
dles  and  metaphysical  enigmas.  From  his  continually 
widening  observation  of  human  nature,  he  may  be 
induced  to  ignore  some  of  the  faded  nostrums  of  tra¬ 
ditional  quackery,  but  his  heart  will  be  sound  and  his 
faith  strong.  Seeing  far  into  man,  he  will  see  far  into 
God,  and  by  loving  his  brother  he  will  love  his  Maker 
more.  Christ  seldom  made  inquiry  into  the  opinions 
of  his  disciples,  but  he  never  failed  to  keep  them  up 
to  a  large-hearted  p7'actice.  When  he  did  inquire  into 
their  opinions,  it  was  always  to  know  how  they  stood 
in  relation  to  himself ;  and  just  in  proportion  as  the 
disciples  saw  God  in  him,  did  he  corroborate  their 
judgment  by  pronouncing  it  a  divine  revelation.  The 
education  of  the  philanthropic  element  in  his  church- 
members  was  Christ’s  main  concern.  We  do  not  know 
that  he  ever  so  much  as  named  Adam  and  Eve,  or  that 
he  drew  any  subtle  distinctions,  or  laid  down  any  pre¬ 
cise  definitions  in  reference  to  supralapsarianism  or 
prevenient  grace ;  but  we  do  know  that  he  drew  up 
such  a  list  of  guests  as  probably  never  assembled  at 
any  board  before  his  time  ;  that  he  commended  the 
poor,  the  halt,  the  maimed,  the  blind,  to  the  special 


126 


ECCE  DEUS. 


care  of  his  members ;  that,  with  the  most  practical 
sarcasm,  he  measured  the  rich  man  by  his  clothes  and 
his  dinner  (u  clothed  in  purple  and  fine  linen,  and  fared 
sumptuously  every  day  ”),  and  sent  the  angels  to  carry 
the  beggar  to  Abraham’s  bosom.  Christ’s  philanthropy 
never  failed,  it  never  yellowed,  or  drooped  as  if  winter 
were  approaching.  He  was  the  divine  teacher  of  phi¬ 
lanthropy  ;  by  which  is  meant  not  official  intermeddling 
about  poor-rates,  prison-ventilation,  and  workhouse 
discipline,  but  simple,  hearty,  brotherly  love  of  man  as 
man,  in  all  zones  and  all  ages.  As  such  a  teacher, 
Christ  taught  the  doctrine  of  the  Fall  more  fully  than 
if  he  had  discussed  it  in  daily  discourses  upon  the 
garden  of  Eden.  He  never  said,  Lift  a  man  up,  with¬ 
out  recognizing  the  Fall ;  he  never  expatiated  upon 
“  the  lost  ”  without  going  back  to  early  events  ;  he  said 
nothing  about  the  Adamic  apostasy,  but  spent  every 
moment  of  his  life  in  seeking  to  reclaim  apostates. 
This  was  the  wisdom  which  cometh  down  from  above. 

Two  settled  and  unchangeable  principles  thus  come 
up  as  including  the  idea  of  the  church  —  love  to  Christ 
and  love  to  man.  Whoever  has  experienced  this  love 
is  in  Christ’s  kingdom  a  living  member ;  he  hath  eter¬ 
nal  life.  This  dual  love  is  another  illustration  of  the 
dual  life  of  Christ.  As  that  life  was  divine  and  human, 
the  life  of  his  members  is  divine  and  human  also  ;  it  is 
not  only  purity  of  heart  which  sees  God,  but  it  is 
mercy  which  pities  men  —  not  only  poverty  of  spirit 
which  claims  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  but  meekness 
which  inherits  the  earth  —  not  only  the  mourning 
which  is  followed  by  rest  in  the  soul,  but  peacemaking 
‘Vhich  reconciles  opposing  hearts  ;  it  is  dual  as  Christ 


THE  CHURCH. 


127 


was  dual  —  weak  enough  to  be  bruised  on  the  cross, 
strong  enough  to  throw  off  the  bondage  of  the  grave. 

That  men  who  know  the  power  of  this  love  should 
seek  each  other’s  fellowship  is  not  merely  natural,  but 
necessary.  A  common  faith  and  a  common  philan¬ 
thropy  bring  them  into  visible  union  ;  mark  them  off 
from  all  other  men,  giving  them  a  lustre  which  makes 
them  the  light  of  the  world,  a  pungency  which  makes 
them  as  the  salt  of  the  earth,  an  elevation  best  repre¬ 
sented  by  u  a  city  set  on  a  hill.”  Their  visible  union 
causes  them  to  be  known  as  u  the  church,”  in  an  infe¬ 
rior  sense  to  that  already  named,  and  those  whom  they 
have  left  are  known  as  u  the  world.”  Speaking  of  his 
disciples  in  one  of  his  prayers,  Christ  specially  marks 
this  distinction  :  u  They  are  not  of  the  world,  even  as 
I  am  not  of  the  world  ;  ”  —  in  it,  yet  above  it  —  in  the 
form  of  servants,  yet  in  the  spirit  of  mastery.  In  early 
days  the  disciples  were  known  to  one  another  by 
endearing  terms  which  our  materialistic  civilization 
can  hardly  use  without  a  significant  hesitation  ;  they 
were  “  saints,”  “  brethren,”  “  servants  of  Jesus  Christ,” 
u  beloved  in  the  Lord  ;  ”  they  were  called  a  “  royal 
priesthood,”  a  “  peculiar  people,”  u  temples  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.”  What  wonder,  then,  if  visible  union 
should  be  a  necessity?  On  lower  conditions  men  enter 
into  organization  ;  artists  unite  ;  merchants  “  do  con¬ 
gregate  ;  ”  philosophers  shut  out  the  common  people  ; 
bankers  have  their  guilds ;  lawyers  their  inns ;  and 
savans  their  esoteric  circles.  Why  should  men  with 
a  common  faith  and  a  common  philanthropy  remain 
apart?  When  we  have  been  in  a  foreign  country, 
unable  to  speak  the  language,  ignorant  of  all  the 


128 


ECCE  DEUS. 


customs,  and  have  incidentally  heard  a  fellow-traveller 
speak  in  our  own  tongue,  has  not  the  surprised  and 
thankful  heart  almost  compelled  us  to  claim  acquaint¬ 
ance  on  the  common  ground  of  nationality,  or  identity 
of  speech?  Some  such  feeling  as  this  must  have  been 
largely  experienced  by  the  first  adherents  of  Christ ; 
an  accent  might  discover  them,  an  allusion  might  bring 
them  into  mutual  embrace.  If  such  unusual  conditions 
do  not  now  elicit  such  warm  demonstration,  is  it  to 
our  credit  if  the  deep  emotion  of  genuine  brotherly 
affection  has  subsided? 

The  church  thus  resting  upon  a  basis  so  easily  com¬ 
prehensible,  it  may  be  interesting  to  inquire  why  all 
who  are  avowedly  ruled  by  the  same  faith  and  philan¬ 
thropy  do  not  meet  as  one  church,  without  distinction 
or  difference  of  any  kind  whatever?  As  the  conditions 
and  credentials  of  membership  are  so  simple,  why 
should  there  be  anything  sectarian  amongst  Christian 
men?  This  inquiry  throws  us  back,  not  upon  Christ, 
but  upon  human  nature :  in  human  nature  there  are 
endless  varieties  of  temperament,  capacity,  culture, 
susceptibility,  and  relationship.  Besides  this,  two 
things  are  to  be  taken  into  consideration  first,  that 
upon  the  two  fundamental  principles  the  church  can 
never  be  divided,  for  by  the  denial  of  either  it  loses 
status,  it  ceases  to  be  a  church  ;  and  second,  that  since 
Christ’s  day  we  have  had  the  Epistles,  which  discuss 
some  theological  points  and  enter  into  various  details, 
on  the  interpretation  of  which  readers  may  fairly  differ. 
Men  are  not  saved  by  interpretations  of  apostolic 
epistles.  They  have  the  common  organs  of  criticism 
at  hand,  and  are  responsible  for  their  right  use.  A 


THE  CHURCH. 


I29 


number  of  men  may  gather  around  each  verse  in  each 
epistle,  and  found  as  many  sects  as  there  are  verses, 
and  yet  the  church  may  be  an  unbroken  whole.  The 
grandeur  of  Christ’s'work  is  seen  in  that  it  descends 
below  all  possibility  of  difference  or  breach.  The 
differences  occasioning  denominationalism  are  but  as 
the  variously  formed  members  of  the  body,  while  the 
church  is  as  united  and  vital  as  the  heart. 

No  doubt  the  Epistles  have  considerably  divided 
men  upon  various  points  ;  still  the  church  is  so  much 
richer  by  the  possession  of  these  letters,  so  full  of 
mixed  experience  and  so  fervent  with  the  passion  of 
an  absorbing  love.  It  is  certainly  better  to  have  them 
than  to  be  without  them,  though  they  do  furnish  a 
wide  ground  of  controversy.  It  is  impossible  but  that 
Peter  and  Paul,  James  and  John,  should  write  many 
things  as  coming  immediately  from  the  lips  of  the 
Lord,  and  that,  according  to  their  various  constitu¬ 
tions  of  mind,  they  should  present  doctrines  in  more 
or  less  of  a  characteristic  manner.  If  the  writers  had 
different  methods,  how  can  the  readers  fail  to  receive 
different  impressions?  The  only  teacher  who  can 
expect  to  preside  over  a  united  school  is  Euclid,  but 
even  Euclid  would  soon  find  that,  if  there  were  two 
methods  of  drawing  a  straight  line,  his  school  would 
be  broken  up  into  parties.  A  question  may  be  said  to 
be  truly  great  in  proportion  as  it  admits  of  multitudi¬ 
nous  variations  of  opinion  and  expression,  yet  binds 
men  by  a  mastery  at  once  irresistible  and  beneficent. 
They  differ  about  it,  yet  they  love  it ;  they  fight  with 
one  another  about  it,  and  yet  unite  against  any  man 
who  would  injure  it.  Little  questions  cannot  per- 

6* 


I3° 


ECCE  DEUS. 


manently  divide  mankind ;  great  questions  will  al¬ 
ways  divide  men,  yet  always  unite  them  at  some 
point.  Men  would  hardly  fight  about  the  best  method 
of  going  up  a  ladder,  but  a  hundred  battles  have  been 
fought  on  the  best  method  of  training  a  child.  So  all 
through  life :  the  deeper  the  question,  the  deeper  the 
opposition ;  men  who  would  only  laugh  at  a  magician 
might  crucify  a  Christ. 

On  the  whole  it  may  be  doubted  whether  differ¬ 
ences,  properly  argued,  are  not  of  advantage  to  reli¬ 
gious  progress.  Now  and  again  somewhat  violent 
attempts  are  made  to  bring  about  visible  unity  in  the 
Christian  denominations,  but  they  do  more  harm  than 
good  by  calling  attention  to  differences  which  are  nov 
vital,  and  giving  what  ought  to  be  held  quite  seconda¬ 
ry  a  factitious  importance.  All  strained  efforts  after 
denominational  unity  are  by  their  very  nature  bad. 
Unity  must  come,  not  through  schemes,  but  through 
vitality,  and  it  would  be  well  if  the  most  zealous 
charity  would  cease  from  its  favorite  pastime  of  setting 
traps  for  the  capture  of  denominationalists.  What 
is  denominationalism  but  an  inconvenient  conven¬ 
ience?  Rise  or  fall,  it  does  not  affect  the  church  as 
we  have  ventured  now  to  define  it.  It  meets  the  tem¬ 
porary  peculiarities  of  human  nature ;  and  if  it  be 
reproduced  in  a  higher  form  as  principalities,  thrones, 
and  dominions  in  the  world  to  come,  that  will  not 
alter  its  relation  to  the  sublime  embodiment  of  tri¬ 
umphant  Sorrow  sitting  in  the  midst  of  the  throne. 
As  men  reside  in  different  houses  and  are  yet  inhabit¬ 
ants  of  the  same  city,  so  Christians  may  worship 
under  different  denominational  politics  and  forms,  and 


THE  CHURCII. 


yet  love  the  same  Saviour.  It  would  be  as  reasonable 
to  reduce  all  soldiers  to  the  same  stature  in  order  to 
present  a  commanding  front  of  patriotism,  as  to  bring 
all  denominations  under  one  polity  to  exemplify 
Christian  unity.  The  world  is  educated  by  opposi¬ 
tion,  and  it  is  more  than  doubtful  whether  such  a 
world  as  it  is  could  be  educated  in  any  other  way. 
Men  may  be  provoked  ”  even  “  to  love  and  good 
works.” 

Union  will  be  best  attested  by  charity  —  not  charity 
in  any  low  sense,  but  charity  as  a  phase  of  justice ; 
not  the  charity  that  condescends,  but  the  charity 
which  concedes  on  equal  terms.  Wherever  infallibil¬ 
ity  is  claimed,  the  possibility  of  union  is  a  blank; 
where  liberty  is  conceded,  union  is  already  a  fact. 
Christ  is  in  all  denominations  where  he  is  loved. 
The  Romanist  feels  that  he  needs  the  crucifix,  the 
penance,  the  Virgin  Mother,  the  intermediate  fire  :  let 
him  have  them ;  he  will  be  saved,  not  by  the  alloy, 
but  by  the  fine  gold.  The  Protestant  offers  a  less 
ornate  worship  :  let  him  do  so  ;  he  will  be  heard,  not 
for  his  sternness,  but  for  his  sincerity.  The  Trini¬ 
tarian  firmly  holds  the  doctrine  of  the  triune  Godhead, 
and  the  reverent  Unitarian  (not  the  scoffing  Socinian) 
feels  that  if  he  has  finished  with  Ecce  Homo  instead 
of  with  Ecce  Deus ,  he  will  ultimately  be  led  by 
gentle  chiding  to  exclaim,  u  My  Lord  and  my  God  !  ” 
Men  are  saved  by  the  crucified  Christ,  not  by  the 
superscription  which  Pilate  wrote. 

We  have  endeavored  broadly  to  mark  the  difference 
between  the  church  and  a  sect.  By  an  undue  (may 
we  not  say  criminal?)  protrusion  of  the  sectarian 


132  ECCE  DEUS. 

phase  of  religious  life,  a  most  erroneous  idea  respect* 
ing  the  church  has  been  encouraged.  If  a  man  has 
not  accepted  a  sect,  it  is  often  contended  that  he  has 
not  entered  the  church.  It  has  been  said,  the  act  of 
entering:  the  church  has  been  regarded  as  a  transaction 
between  man  and  man,  whereas  is  it  not  entirely  a 
transaction  between  the  spirit  and  Jesus  Christ? 
Take  an  illustration :  in  some  places  the  approach 
to  the  table  of  communion,  or  the  Lord’s  Supper,  is 
considered  as  the  sign  of  church-membership ;  but 
before  that  table  can  be  approached,  the  intending 
communicant  must  undergo  some  kind  of  official 
examination  as  to  his  theological  views.  Where  is 
Christ’s  authority  for  this?  Does  not  such  an  inquiry 
proceed  upon  the  principle  that  the  Lord’s  Supper  is 
an  administration  rather  than  a  communion  —  some¬ 
thing  to  be  dispensed  by  a  superior  hand  rather  than 
taken  with  a  trembling  joy  by  the  man  himself?  In 
such  a  service  who  could  be  elevated  to  the  dignity 
of  an  administrator?  For  mere  convenience  the 
emblems  may  be  dispensed  by  the  teacher  or  his 
assistants ;  but  this  is  an  arrangement  required  by 
order,  not  a  superiority  conferred  by  God.  Around 
the  cross  all  men  are  equal ;  around  the  table,  which 
represents  the  cross,  all  men  must  be  equal  too.  But 
this  equality  cannot  co-exist  with  the  idea  of  dispensa¬ 
tion.  Men  cannot  meet  in  any  official  capacity  what¬ 
soever  at  the  Lord’s  table ;  there  they  may  assemble 
only  as  persons  for  whom  the  body  was  broken  and 
the  blood  shed.  The  clergyman  is  not  a  clergyman, 
the  officer  is  not  an  officer,  when  seated  at  the  board 
of  communion  ;  the  communicants  are  there  as  sinners 


THE  CHURCII. 


*33 


who  hav  *  accepted  salvation  through  Jesus  Christ. 
But  is  not  examination  needed  ?  Yes,  but  it  must  be 
self-examination.  Paul’s  words  are  explicit :  u  Let  a 
man  examine  himself,  and  so  let  him  eat  of  that  bread 
and  drink  of  that  cup.”  It  is  feared  that  an  open 
table  might  be  taken  advantage  of  by  designing 
persons.  The  answer  to  this  is  evident :  no  plan 
will  keep  out  designing  persons ;  they  can  accom¬ 
modate  themselves  to  any  process  ;  if  unworthy  per¬ 
sons  do  approach  the  table,  they  eat  and  drink  to  their 
own  condemnation,  not  to  the  condemnation  of  other 
people.  This  is  in  striking  accord  with  all  that  we 
have  seen  in  the  life  of  Christ,  who  continually  threw 
men  back  upon  their  own  consciousness,  and  com¬ 
pelled  them  to  judge  their  own  actions  ;  it  is,  too,  in 
perfect  harmony  with  the  liberty  which  he  came  to 
inaugurate  and  establish  among  men,  purifying  each 
man’s  judicial  faculty  and  .giving  him  the  highest 
advantages  with  a  view  to  self-rectification.,, 

If  men  choose  to  build  places  of  worship  and  to  lay 
down  special  regulations  and  conditions  of  attendance 
or  membership,  they  may  be  at  liberty  to  do  so  ;  but 
no  man  can  ever  be  at  liberty  to  alter  the  terms  upon 
which  salvation  is  offered  to  the  world.  He  who 
attempts  to  do  so  is  guilty  of  the  worst  form  of  blas¬ 
phemy.  The  sect  which  has  perverted  a  communion 
into  a  dispensation  has  interfered  with  the  incom¬ 
municable  prerogative  of  Christ.  No  man  can  dis¬ 
pense  the  light,  or  the  wind,  or  the  rain,  or  any  of  the 
primary  forces  or  gifts  of  God  ;  no  more  can  any  man 
dispense,  except  in  the  way  of  mere  order,  the  body 
and  blood  of  God’s  Son.  In  the  widest  sense,  Christ 


134 


ECCE  DEUS. 


gives  himself ;  of  such  a  gift  there  cannot  be  a  sec¬ 
ondary  giver  —  hence  communion  alone  can  save  the 
dignity  and  value  of  the  gift. 

The  place  of  the  Lord’s  Supper  in  the  church  is  a 
subject  on  which  diversity  of  opinion  prevails.  At 
first  sight  the  idea  of  eating  and  drinking  together 
suggests  the  socialism  of  fellowship  in  Christ,  and 
pleasing  sentiments  of  equality  before  God,  both  of 
which  are  perfectly  true,  and  yet  other  and  more  may 
be  meant  by  this  communion.  It  is  pleasant  to  think 
that  in  such  common  things  as  bread  and  wine  Christ 
found  emblems  of  himself;  pleasant  also  to  think  of  a 
whole  community  coming  together  from  time  to  time 
to  ratify  their  bonds.  But  is  not  all  this  beside  the 
mark?  With  regard  to  the  idea  of  hospitality,  Paul 
sharply  reproved  the  Corinthians  for  their  practice  at 
the  table.  u  What,”  said  he,  “  have  ye  not  houses  to 
eat  and  to  drink  in?  ....  If  any  man  hunger,  let 
him  eat  at  home.”  The  social  idea,  it  would  appear, 
however  pleasant  in  itself,  was  not  the  idea  con¬ 
templated  in  the  establishment  of  the  Communion. 
Men  could  not  be  social  around  the  broken  body  of 
any  man,  specially  of  any  man  whom  they  had 
accepted  as  their  Lord.  However  sacredly  some 
persons  may  regard  a  club  dinner,*  it  ought  to  be 
borne  in  mind  that  bread  and  wine  are  not  mere 
viands  for  refreshment,  but  the  emblems  of  Christ’s 
body  and  blood.  Only  cannibals  could  dine,  in  any 
sense  of  a  club  dinner,  off  a  crucified  man.  There 
must,  then,  we  think,  be  something  more,  something 
deeper,  too,  than  the  idea  of  friendliness  or  fellowship. 

*  See  Ecce  Homo ,  p.  187. 


THE  CHURCH. 


*35 


Christ’s  own  explanation  ought  to  be  final:  “Take, 
eat,”  said  he,  “  this  is  my  body,  broken  for  you  ;  ” 
“  This  cup  is  the  new  testament  in  my  blood.”  The 
author  just  referred  to  says,  “  A  common  meal  is  the 
most  natural  and  universal  way  of  expressing,  main¬ 
taining,  and,  as  it  were,  ratifying  relations  of  friend¬ 
ship.”  *  .This  is  true  in  itself,  but  the  very  idea  of  a 
“meal”  is  foreign  to  the  spirit  of  this  communion. 
As  established  by  Christ,  the  Supper  did  not  refer  to 
“  relations  of  friendship,”  but  exclusively  to  himself. 
Is  it  not  so?  The  terms  of  the  service,  as  cited  by  the 
New  Testament  writers,  certainly  imply  it:  “ This  do 
in  remembrance  of  me;  ”  and  again,  “  This  do  ye,  as 
oft  as  ye  drink  it,  in  remembrance  of  me .”  What  is 
there  about  “friendship”  here?  That  “friendship” 
would  be  purified  and  elevated  by  such  an  act  is  un¬ 
doubted,  but  what  was  the  primary  idea  of  the  Sup¬ 
per?  That  idea  is  described  as  combining  recollec¬ 
tion  and  anticipation.  Not  only  is  it  written,  “  This 
do  in  remembrance- of  me,”  but  also,  “  As  often  as  ye 
eat  this  bread  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do  show  the 
Lord’s  death  till  he  come.”  And  why  retain  the 
memory  of  that  event?  Because  it  was  '''•for  you:” 
“  This  is  my  body,  which  is  given  for  you,”  —  “  This 
cup  is  the  new  testament  in  my  blood,  which  is  shed 
for  you.”  The  personal  interest  of  the  communicant 
in  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  is  the  reason  for  preserving 
the  memory  of  “  the  Lord’s  death.”  The  author  of 
Ecce  Homo  says,  “  It  is  precisely  this  intense  per¬ 
sonal  devotion,  this  habitual  feeding  on  the  character 
of  Christ,  so  that  the  essential  nature  of  the  master 

*  See  Ecce  Homo ,  p.  187. 


ECCE  DEUS. 


seems  to  pass  into  and  become  the  essential  nature  of 
the  servant  —  loyalty  carried  to  the  point  of  self 
annihilation  —  that  is  expressed  by  the  words  ‘eating 
the  flesh  and  drinking  the  blood  of  Christ’”  (p.  176). 
We  think  there  is  some  confusion  of  idea  here.  Men 
could  have  “fed  on  the  character  of  Christ”  without 
having  a  sacrament,  so  to  speak,  imposed  on  them; 
but  they  could  not  “  show  forth  ”  the  Lord’s  death 
without  a  sacrament,  the  very  idea  of  “  showing  forth  ” 
requiring  visibility  and  symbolism.  “Feeding  on  the 
character  of  Christ”  is  purely  a  mental  act,  but  a  club 
dinner  is  more.  And,  again,  if  eating  the  flesh  and 
drinking  the  blood  of  Christ  expresses  “  intense  per¬ 
sonal  devotion,”  where  is  the  idea  of  “  ratifying  the 
relations  of  friendship  ”  ?  It  can  only  come  in  sec¬ 
ondarily,  not  primarily,  as  it  did  in  the  first  part  of  th  j 
argument. 

The  Lord’s  Supper  is  a  memorial.  It  does  not 
necessarily  imply  the  joint  act  of  a  number  of  persons. 
A  single  man  may  show  forth  his  “  Lord’s  death.” 
The  club  idea  is  not  in  the  nature  of  the  service  at  all. 
Men  stand  in  a  personal,  not  in  an  associated  relation 
to  that  death,  and  the  communion  mu?-4'  be  personal, 
not  one  with  another,  but  each  with  th**  }  ,ord.  The 
club  idea  is  more  pertinent  to  the  church  coming  to¬ 
gether  to  feed  on  the  divine  Word  as  it  mav  be  read 
and  expounded  publicly.  In  the  Old  and  New  Testa¬ 
ment  men  are  often  represented  as  eating  and  drinking 
the  word  of  God,  and  as  speaking  to  one  another  about 
the  bounty  and  goodness  of  the  feast.  Job  said,  “  I 
have  esteemed  the  words  of  his  mouth  more  than  my 
necessary  food.”  The  Psalmist  said,  “  How  sweet  are 


THE  CHURCH. 


*37 


thy  words  unto  my  taste !  Yea,  sweeter  than  honey 
to  my  mouth;”  and  Jesus  himself  said,  u  My  meat  is 
to  do  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me,  and  to  finish  his 
work.”  Men  are  invited  to  “  eat  and  drink  abundant¬ 
ly,”  and  to  let  their  “  soul  delight  itself  in  fatness,” 
and  God  is  proclaimed  as  making  “  unto  all  people  a 
feast  of  fat  things,  a  feast  of  wines  on  the  lees,  of  fat 
things  full  of  marrow,  of  wines  on  the  lees  well  re¬ 
fined.”  There  is  much  in  this  imagery  to  favor  the 
idea  of  a  club  dinner,  and  to  give  a  meaning  to  the 
expression,  u  feeding  on  the  character  of  Christ.”  If 
it  be  suggested  that  each  man  should  partake  of  the 
Lord’s  Supper  privately,  the  suggestion  would  involve 
the  cessation  of  all  public  service  ;  men  can  pray  alone, 
sing  alone,  read  alone  ;  but  Christ  called  men  to  him¬ 
self,  constituted  those  who  came  into  a  church,  and 
that  church  is  to-day  his  representative  and  the  treas¬ 
urer  of  his  testimony. 

With  regard  to  the  expression  “  eat  my  flesh  and 
drink  my  blood,”  it  should  be  noted  that  it  was  not 
used  in  connection  with  the  Supper.  It  forms  part  of 
an  appeal  to  the  general  multitude  which  pursued 
Christ  after  the  distribution  of  the  loaves  and  fishes. 
He  knew  that  the  people  sought  him  because  they 
“  did  eat  of  the  loaves  and  were  filled,”  and  thereupon 
he  discoursed  concerning  himself  as  u  the  living  bread 
which  came  down  from  heaven.”  His  method  of  put¬ 
ting  the  case  was  likely  to  create  strife  among  the  liter- 
alists  who  heard  him  ;  and  as  the  Jews  “  stiove  among 
themselves,  saying,  How  can  this  man  give  us  his  flesh 
to  eat?”  Jesus  answered,  “Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of 
the  Son  of  Man  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  no  life 


■3» 


ECCE  DEUS. 


in  you  :  whoso  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood 
dwelleth  in  me,  and  I  in  him.”  The  circumstances 
clearly  show  that  the  expression  did  not  relate  to  the 
Supper,  but  was  part  of  what  we  should  now  regard 
as  a  sermon  or  a  religious  address.  In  this  sense  there 
is  no  incongruity  in  rendering  it  as  equivalent  to  u  feed¬ 
ing  on  the  character  of  Christ.”  The  hearers  had  eaten 
of  the  natural  bread,  and  as  usual  Chiist  conducted 
them  to  a  spiritual  interpretation  of  natural  circum¬ 
stances,  and  so  put  himself  before  them  as  the  living 
bread — a  strong  figurative  representation  of  his  per¬ 
son  and  work.  It  is  as  though  he  had  said,  —  You 
have  eaten  of  the  bread  that  perisheth  ;  as  that  bread 
nourishes  the  body,  there  is  another  bread  which  nour¬ 
ishes  the  mind  ;  as  the  body  could  not  exist  without 
the  former,  so  the  mind  must  die  without  the  latter ;  I 
myself  am  the  living  bread,  the  mind  must  feed  upon 
me  as  specially  provided  for  its  quickening.  In  so 
addressing  the  people,  Christ  elevated  a  fact  into  a 
figure ;  he  took  the  circumstance  of  the  hour  and 
hung  upon  it  lessons  of  eternity  ;  he  did  not  import 
the  figure  as  an  original  conception,  but  found  it  in 
the  passing  event.  To  press  the  allegory  further  would 
be  unjust,  and  would  bring  other  allegories  under  an 
interpretation  which  would  be  absurd.  Also  to  asso¬ 
ciate  the  expression  with  the  Supper  is  to  put  it  out  of 
place,  and  to  force  upon  the  Supper  violent  and  un¬ 
tenable  meanings.  That  points  of  analogy  may  be 
discovered  is  clear  enough,  but  what  two  things  are 
there  in  the  world  which  do  not  bear  some  resemblance 
and  relation  to  one  another? 

The  argument  which  we  have  sought  to  establish  is, 


THE  CHURCH. 


*39 


that  Christ  founded  his  church  upon  a  common  faith 
and  a  common  philanthropy  ;  that  the  church  is  one 
and  indivisible  ;  that  the  sect  is  not  to  be  confounded 
with  the  church  ;  that  the  church  is  immortal,  though 
the  sect  is  temporary  ;  that  entrance  into  the  church 
is  purely  a  transaction  between  Christ  and  the  in¬ 
dividual  ;  that  within  the  church  there  is  a  sacra¬ 
ment  called  the  Lord’s  Supper,  a  sacrament  which  is 
not  a  dispensation,  but  a  communion  ;  a  sacrament 
which  may  be  approached  without  official  examina¬ 
tion,  but  not  without  severe  self-inquest ;  that  the  Sup¬ 
per  is  a  memorial  and  a  hope,  —  not  a  club  dinner, 
even  in  its  most  refined  and  legitimate  sense,  but  a 
special  communion  between  the  communicant  and 
his  Lord. 


140 


CHAPTER  X. 


THE  CHURCH  LEFT  IN  THE  WORLD. 


OW  that  men  have  been  called  and  united,  it  may 


T-  ^  be  time  to  inquire  into  the  laws  by  which  they 
are  to  be  personally  and  relatively  governed.  Life  is 
continually  presenting  new  aspects ;  and  a  widening 
civilization  is  perpetually  throwing  up  questions  which 
challenge  the  consideration  of  men  who  profess  to  go 
beyond  “  the  world  ”  for  their  doctrine  and  policy. 
Side  by  side  with  the  Christian  organization  called 
the  church,  many  a  powerful  rivalry  has  been  growing 
up,  so  that  a  persistent  competition  has  been  brought 
to  .bear  upon  the  interests,  real  or  supposed,  of  the 
whole  community.  We  have  seen  that  Christ  re¬ 
garded  his  disciples  as  “  not  of  the  world,”  yet  to-day 
“  the  world  ”  is  setting  up  a  claim  for  the  suffrages  of 
the  disciples.  The  line  of  separation  is  supposed  by 
some  observers  to  have  faded  much.  Is  it  so  in  reality? 
It  may  be  worth  while  to  inquire  how  Jesus  Christ, 
simply  regarded  as  a  bold  and  far-sighted  propagand¬ 
ist,  proposed  to  keep  vast  masses  of  men  in  permanent 
union  —  in  other  words,  to  consider  how  men  can  be 
in  the  world,  yet  not  of  it ;  can  live  in  it,  and  yet 
be  above  it ;  can  be  united  with  one  another,  yet  sepa¬ 
rate  from  sinners.  No  imperium  in  imperio  is  so 
great  a  mystery  as  the  church  in  the  world.  Christ 


THE  CHURCH  LEFT  IN  THE  WORLD.  141 

surely  proposed  a  hard  thing  to  his  disciples  when  he 
required  them  to  remain  in  the  world  and  yet  to  con¬ 
tinue  not  only  to  be  superior  to  its  contaminations,  but 
to  make  daily  encroachments  upon  its  dominion  until 
its  authority  was  completely  upset.  In  one  of  his 
prayers  Christ  said,  “  I  pray  not  that  thou  shouldest 
take  them  out  of  the  world,  but  that  thou  shouldest 
keep  them  from  evil.”  Here  is  the  difficulty. 

In  attempting  the  negative  work  of  keeping  men 
from  evil,  it  is  customary  to  set  down  in  systematic 
order  minute  regulations  and  directions  respecting 
things  which  are  to  be  avoided.  Christ  did  not  adopt 
this  plan.  Rather  by  allusion  than  by  detailed  state¬ 
ment,  he  indicated  certain  forbidden  territory,  and 
then  betook  himself  to  the  affirmative  side  of  his  plan. 
He  did  not  hope  to  keep  men  from  evil  by  lecturing 
about  it,  by  elaborating  a  penal  system,  or  by  any  appeal 
to  the  lower  instincts  of  human  nature.  His  simple 
plan  was  to  counteract  death  by  life.  Thus,  instead 
of  telling  a  man  not  to  despond,  he  inspired  him  with 
a  new  hope  ;  instead  of  telling  a  man  to  do  no  murder, 
he  gave  him  such  notions  of  the  sanctity  of  human 
life  as  took  away  the  very  tendency  to  anger.  This 
was  his  fundamental  plan.  “Thou  shalt  not ”  was 
adapted  to  a  ruder  age  of  the  world;  “Thou  shalt” 
was  now  to  take  its  place.  The  ineffectiveness  of 
merely  negative  instruction  is  shown  every  day.  Take 
the  case  of  the  gambler :  tell  him  that  gambling  will 
bring  him  to  ruin  or  inflict  ruin  on  others ;  insist  upon 
it  that  gambling  is  a  perilous  and  mischievous  prac¬ 
tice,  and  not  improbably  the  gambler  will  assent  to 
the  doctrine:  but  will  he  abandon  the  habit?  Go 


142 


ECCE  DEUS. 


further:  imprison  the  gambler;  take,  from  him  all 
gambling  instruments,  and  condemn  him  to  live  in 
penniless  poverty  all  the  rest  of  his  days :  does  he 
cease  to  be  a  gambler?  Only  in  the  lowest  sense  ;  he 
is  still  a  gambler  in  spirit ;  the  evil  is  untouched. 
What  does  Christ  propose  in  such  a  case?  He  not 
only  casts  out  the  devil,  but  he  puts  in  the  Holy  Spirit. 
He  gives  the  gambler  something  better  to  do,  and 
proves  his  entire  success  by  leaving  the  man  in  the 
world,  yet  keeping  him  from  the  evil.  It  would  be  a 
poor  thing  to  take  the  man  out  of  the  world  ;  if  he 
required  to  be  so  taken,  that  very  fact  would  prove 
that  he  was  not  perfectly  healed  by  Christ.  The  most 
conclusive  testimony  which  is  afforded  of  the  divine 
force  of  truth  is  that  men  continue  in  the  world,  though 
inhaling  the  atmosphere  of  heaven.  Satan  is  put  under 
their  feet.  They  are  still  in  the  region  of  war,  but 
protected  by  impenetrable  armor. 

The  fact  that  life  must  have  occupation,  shows  the 
inutility  of  merely  negative  teaching.  Life  cannot 
remain  quiescent ;  it  has  appropriative  and  distributive 
functions,  and  must  operate  accordingly.  If  it  be  not 
pursuing  good,  it  must  be  doing  mischief.  How  does 
Christ  propose  to  engage  those  functions? 

We  may  simplify  the  course  of  inquiry  by  confining 
it  to  the  subject  of  amusements.  The  mirthful  side  of 
human  nature  must  be  provided  for.  The  sects  have 
shut  up  the  theatre,  the  race-course,  and  the  dancing- 
saloon  ;  they  have  forbidden  game  after  game  ;  the  Ten 
Commandments  they  have  displaced  by  a  hundred  of 
their  own,  each  commencing  with  u  Thou  shalt  not.” 
Nothing  was  easier,  and  nothing  was  more  useless.  A 


THE  CHURCH  LEFT  IN  THE  WORLD.  1 43 

man  loves  the  drama  passionately ;  he  sees  only  the 
ideal  side  of  it ;  the  true  interpretation  of  a  great  poem 
is  to  him  the  most  refined  of  luxuries  ;  he  is  entranced 
by  the  genius  of  art.  The  sects  say  to  him,  You  must 
give  up  the  drama,  and  he  receives  the  intimation  with 
great  surprise,  probably  too  with  some  disgust.  The 
intimation  may  be  given  to  him  by  a  man  who  hardly 
knows  the  meaning  of  the  word  drama,  who  has  no 
soul  for  poetry,  no  eye  for  art  —  a  man  who  would 
throw  jewels  away  because  the  casket  had  been  spotted 
with  mud.  Are  the  feelings  of  the  dramatist  not  easily 
conceivable,  and  do  they  not  under  such  circumstances 
call  for  sympathy?  Christ  never  told  his  disciples  not 
to  go  to  the  theatre,  the  race-course,  or  the  revel ;  from 
end  to  end  of  his  teaching  no  such  prohibition  can  be 
found.  What  then  did  Christ  do?  He  said,  “Make 
the  tree  good,  and  the  fruit  will  be  good ;  ”  don’t  trim 
the  leaves,  vitalize  the  root ;  don’t  attach,  but  develop. 
He  opened,  as  we  have  seen,  a  wide  field  of  philan¬ 
thropic  service,  healing  the  sick,  feeding  the  hungry, 
clothing  the  naked,  preaching  liberty  to  the  captive  ; 
he  filled  men  with  his  own  spirit,  and  then  left  them 
to  go  whithersoever  it  would  conduct  them.  Christ 
did  not  teach  from  the  outward  to  the  inward,  but  from 
the  inward  to  the  outward.  It  is  better  to  give  a  man 
a  good  principle  than  a  good  practice  ;  it  is  better  to 
be  good  than  merely  to  behave  well ;  the  one  is  char¬ 
acter,  the  other  is  convenience.  Christ’s  plan  of  meet¬ 
ing  the  wants  of  all  sides  of  human  life  was  stated  in 
one  sentence  —  “  I  have  given  them  thy  word.  ”  He 
had  put  a  spirit  and  a  standard  within  them.  The  law 
was  henceforth  not  an  outside  letter,  but  an  internal 


x44 


ECCE  DEUS 


voice.  The  holy  Word  gave  place  to  the  Holy  Spirit. 
It  was  as  if  a  new  sense  had  been  added  to  the  Chris¬ 
tian  nature  —  a  sense  of  immediate  and  accurate  moral 
touch  which  instantly  discovered  the  quality  of  every 
doctrine  or  act.  This  is  given  to  every  man  who  is  in 
Christ ;  who  has  eaten  his  flesh  and  drunk  his  blood, 
and  so  become  essentially  one  with  him. 

As  to  questions  in  casuistry  which  come  up  again 
and  again  in  practical  life,  one  of  the  ablest  reasoners 
in  the  early  church  has  laid  down  principles  of  univer¬ 
sal  and  unerring  application.  Christ  determined  the 
fundamental  point,  and  Paul  followed  with  special 
illustrations.  It  may  be  well  to  spend  a  moment  with 
Paul,  that  we  may  see  what  his '  interpretation  of 
Christ’s  idea  was.  There  had  been  a  discussion  in  one 
of  the  Christian  communities  respecting  eating,  which 
was  not  unlikely  to  create  a  serious  division.  The 
great  apostolic  casuist,  who  had  in  him  a  volume  of 
humanity  second  only  to  the  Son  of  Man,  and  who 
could  consequently  see  most  sides  of  a  controverted 
subject,  argued  the  cause  with  characteristic  acumen 
and  cogency.  “  Let  not  him  that  eateth,”  said  he, 
“  despise  him  that  eateth  not;  and  let  not  him  which 
eateth  not  judge  him  that  eateth  :  for  God  hath  received 
him.”  He  insisted  upon  strict  individuality  of  judg¬ 
ment  and  conscience  in  the  case,  and  became  indignant 
with  all  censoriousness  of  criticism :  u  Who  art  thou 
that  judgest  another  man’s  servant?  To  his  own  master 
he  standeth  or  falleth.  Yea,  he  shall  be  holden  up, 
for  God  is  able  to  make  him  stand.”  The  spirit  of 
mastery  must  be  put  down  in  the  Christian  fellowship  ; 
there  is  one  Master,  and  all  judgment  on  the  part  of 


THE  CHURCH  LEFT  IN  THE  WORLD.  I45 

the  servants  is  so  much  detraction  from  his  supremacy 
in  the  church.  On  matters  of  detail,  then,  there  is  no 
common  law  in  the  Christian  brotherhood  ;  no  amuse¬ 
ment  is  prescribed,  no  amusement  is  forbidden  ;  a  man 
may  drink  wine,  or  a  man  may  abstain  from  wine  ;  a 
man  may  eat  meat,  or  he  may  subsist  on  herbs  ;  a  man 
may  esteem  one  day  above  another,  or  he  may  esteem 
every  diy  alike.  Let  the  indwelling  Spirit  determine. 
“Why  dost  thou  judge  thy  brother?  or  why  dost  thou 
set  at  nought  thy  brother?  for  we  shall  all  stand  before 
the  judgment  seat  of  Christ.”  The  church  is  not  con¬ 
federated  upon  questions  of  casuistry  ;  it  is  founded  on 
a  common  faith  and  a  common  philanthropy.  It  may 
be  inquired  —  Since  the  Spirit  is  the  same,  ought  not 
the  results  to  be  the  same?  Certainly  not.  The  re¬ 
sults  come  through  the  idiosyncrasies  of  each  man’s 
constitution.  No  two  men  are  alike,  though  all  men 
are  made  by  God.  One  man  is  naturally  contempla¬ 
tive,  another  active  ;  one  melancholy,  another  mirthful ; 
one  enterprising,  another  conservative.  Christianity 
does  not  change  the  basis  of  a  man’s  individuality,  but 
gives  him  a  new  spirit  by  which  that  individuality  may 
be  properly  trained.  As  to  amusements  or  recreations, 
most  of  which  are  supposed  to  lean  towards  the  devil, 
their  election  is  an  individual  question.  It  is  for  Chris¬ 
tians  to  say  how  far  they  can  go  into  the  world  of 
recreation.  There  is  a  solemnity  which  is  more  sinful 
than  laughter ;  there  is  a  laughter  more  acceptable  to 
God  than  solemnity.  Some  men  never  laughed,  — 
cannot  laugh,  but  they  have  a  ready  talent  for  con¬ 
demning  laughter  in  others ;  what  is  wanting  in  mirth 
is  made  up  in  censoriousness.  They  have  but  a  small 

7 


146 


ECCE  DEUS. 


endowment  of  life  to  answer  for,  and  cannot,  con¬ 
sequently,  comprehend  the  many-sided  men  who, 
while  open  to  all  the  influences  of  mirth,  have  their 
holy  hours  of  deep  and  probably  agonizing  devotion. 

So  much  for  the  personal  side  of  the  question  ;  but 
we  are  to  consider  the  law  which  is  to  govern  not 
individual  men  only,  but  men  who  are  organized  into 
a  church.  How  is  individuality  to  stand  in  relation  to 
community?  While  each  man  may  be  a  law  unto 
himself,  each  man  is  not  a  church  unto  himself.  We 
may  continue  to  argue  the  case,  by  still  keeping  to  the 
simple  illustration  of  an  amusement.  Differences  of 
opinion  do  obtain  as  to  amusements,  but  it  should  be 
borne  in  mind  that  the  church,  as  such,  is  never  asked 
to  adopt  any  method  of  amusement  or  recreation ;  it 
is  exclusively  a  personal  matter,  and  can  only  relate 
to  the  corporate  body  on  the  ground  of  influence  or 
example.  The  reputation  of  the  whole  may  be  com¬ 
promised  by  the  action  of  a  part.  Paul  lays  down 
this  doctrine :  u  I  know,  and  am  persuaded  by  the 
Lord  Jesus,  that  there  is  nothing  unclean  of  itself ;  but 
to  him  that  esteemeth  anything  to  be  unclean,  to  him 
it  is  unclean.”  The  important  point  of  this  statement 
is,  that  it  is  given  on  Christ’s  own  authority ;  and  it 
certainly  is  of  the  utmost  consequence  to  have  it  laid 
down  by  Jesus  Christ  himself  that  u  there  is  nothing 
unclean  of  itself.”  But  the  question  forced  upon  men 
by  their  association  is,  how  far  private  tastes  are  to  be 
controlled  by  the  public  opinion  of  the  body?  Are 
they  to  be  controlled  at  all?  Paul  says  that  some  are 
“  weak  in  the  faith,”  from  which  it  may  be  inferred 
that  some  are  strong :  how  then  ?  Are  the  weak  to 


THE  CHURCH  LEFT  IN  THE  WORLD.  1 47 

consider  the  strong,  or  the  strong  to  consider  the 
weak?  If  family  life  may  afford  a  suggestion,  noth¬ 
ing  can  be  clearer  than  that  the  strong  are  to  con- 
sider  the  weak ;  the  mother  lives  for  the  infant,  not  the 
infant  for  the  mother.  The  case  is  put  in  the  clearest 
light  by  Paul :  “  Let  us  not  therefore  judge  one  an¬ 
other  any  more ;  but  judge  this  rather,  that  no  man 
put  a  stumbling-block  or  an  occasion  to  fall  in  his 
brother’s  way.”  This  is  the  very  spirit  of  Christian 
philanthropy,  the  considerations  of  self  being  sub¬ 
ordinated  to  consideration  of  others.  “  What !  ”  some 
one  may  exclaim,  “  am  I  to  surrender  my  pleasures, 
because  there  are  persons  called  weak  brethren  in  the 
world?  The  pleasures  are  to  me  perfectly  legitimate, 
and  I  think  it  unreasonable  that  any  man  should  be 
offended  by  them.”  A  strong  case,  indeed,  when 
viewed  from  any  point  but  that  of  Christian  philan¬ 
thropy.  It  is  just  here,  however,  that  the  stress 
comes  upon  that  philanthropy,  and  tests  it.  The 
philanthropy  is  not  a  mere  sentiment,  but  a  control¬ 
ling  power,  having  no  self,  and  knowing  nothing  but 
man  in  the  image  of  God.  In  proportion  as  a  man 
gives  up  the  very  smallest  enjoyment  for  the  sake  of 
his  brother  man,  he  comes  to  know  what  is  meant  by 
sacrifice,  by  self-sacrifice,  and  gets  at  least  a  distant 
glimpse  of  the  Philanthropist  who  u  pleased  not  him¬ 
self.”  Why  the  shock  at  such  a  proposition  as  is 
above  suggested?  The  very  principle  is  carried  out 
in  family  life.  The  parent  denies  himself  many  enjoy¬ 
ments  for  the  sake  of  his  child :  is  not  the  church  a 
family?  When  the  parent  says,  “I  shall  not  do  this, 
because  my  child  may  get  from  it  a  wrong  impression 


ECCE  DEUS. 


148 

of  life ;  the  thing  itself  would  be  right  enough  to  me, 
but  he  cannot  yet  comprehend  my  reasons  for  doing 
it :  therefore,  purely  for  his  sake,  I  shall  abstain  ;  ”  he 
will  see  new  and  overpowering  meanings  in  such 
expressions  as  —  “  Christ  pleased  not  himself ;  ” 
“  Christ  loved  us,  and  gave  himself  for  us  ;  ”  u  For 
their  sakes,  I  sanctify  myself ;  ”  “  He  took  upon 
him  the  form  of  a  servant.”  These  expressions  can¬ 
not  be  opened  by  the  lexicographer ;  they  are  known 
only  to  the  practical  philanthropist.  The  heart  re¬ 
ceives  the  interpretation,  while  the  head  can  but 
wonder.  A  man  has  been  heard  to  say,  that  nevei 
until  he  saw  his  own  little  child  in  pain,  did  he  know 
what  was  meant  by  the  words,  u  Like  as  a  father 
pitieth  his  children,  so  the  Lord  pitieth  them  that  fear 
him.”  His  own  nature  became  the  interpreter  of 
God’s.  Through  an  analogous  process  we  come  to 
understand  somewhat  of  the  mystery  of  Christ’s  sacri¬ 
fice.  As  a  written  doctrine,  it  is  little  more  than  an 
external  beauty,  thought  to  be  too  sacred  for  imitation 
or  reproduction  in  any  degree ;  but  when  once  the 
spirit  of  sacrifice  has  been  developed,  it  brings  with  it 
a  sweetness  beyond  all  other  sweetness,  and  a  con¬ 
sciousness  of  sp /ritual  dominion,  kindred  to  being  u  ex¬ 
alted  to  be  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour.”  The  range  of 
self-sacrifice  is  moie  extensive  than  is  commonly  sup¬ 
posed.  The  child  who  sits  silently  in  a  sick-room  lest 
a  dying  parent  should  be  disturbed,  is  within  that 
range  ;  so  is  the  mother  who  gives  up  her  days  and 
nights  to  her  sickening  infant ;  so  is  the  man  who 
divides  his  last  loaf  with  his  hungering  neighbor ; 
and  so  is  the  noble  creature  who  denies  himself  a 


THE  CHURCH  LEFT  IN  THE  WORLD.  149 

luxury,  lest  a  weak  brother  should  stumble.  All  this 
is  included  in  Christ’s  idea  of  sacrifice ;  with  this 
difference,  however,  that  while  the  parent  sacrifices 
for  his  child,  and  the  neighbor  for  a  man  of  kindred 
heart,  Christ  died  for  his  enemies.  This  disclosed  the 
greatness  of  his  nature.  He  saw  in  man  what  no 
other  eye  could  see.  He  did  for  his  enemies  what 
few  men  would  do  for  their  friends,  so  that  from  his 
lips  as  from  no  other  could  come  the  command, 
“  Love  your  enemies.” 

In  this  way  Christ  broke  in  upon  the  organized  self¬ 
ishness  of  the  world,  and  “  troubled  ”  society  with  his 
unearthly  doctrine  of  self-abnegation.  And  in  this 
way  he  proposed  to  keep  up  eternally  the  distinction 
between  the  church  and  the  world,  and  so  to  preserve 
his  disciples  from  evil,  while  they  continued  more  or 
less  in  the  very  midst  of  their  old  associations.  The 
spirit  of  sacrifice  is  the  best  defence  against  evil ;  not 
the  spirit  of  criticism,  not  the  sharpness  of  wit,  not 
the  resources  of  experience,  but  the  spirit  of  self-sup¬ 
pression  as  it  was  manifested  by  Jesus  Christ  in  the 
Temptation.  Every  temptation  was  an  appeal  to 
self;  every  answer  showed  how  self  could  be  held  in 
perfect  subjection.  This  was  the  root  of  his  power  ;  it 
came  to  fruition  on  the  Cross. 

Reverting  to  the  church,  we  find  a  distinct  law  laid 
down  by  Paul  for  the  regulation  of  associated  life : 
44 Ye  have  been  called  unto  liberty;  only  use  not 
liberty  for  an  occasion  to  the  flesh,  but  by  love  serve 
one  another.”  We  have  still  the  same  principle  of 
philanthropy  called  into  exercise.  It  is  perfectly  true 
that  a  man  has  liberty,  but  it  is  also  true  that  liberty 


ECCE  DEUS. 


'50 

is  to  be  the  servant  of  love.  Liberty  is  consistent  with 
self,  but  love  is  not ;  therefore  love  is  the  final  law. 
The  possessor  of  mere  liberty  (assuming  that  to  be 
possible)  may  take  counsel  with  himself  as  to  enjoy¬ 
ment  ;  may  write  a  detailed  programme,  and  repel 
dictation ;  but  the  man  whose  liberty  is  controlled  by 
love  will  ask  how  this  or  that  will  affect  the  persons 
who  observe  his  conduct,  or  come"  under  his  influ¬ 
ence.  He  will  instantly  explode  the  sophism  that  men 
should  come  up  to  him  rather  than  that  he  should  go 
down  to  them  ;  like  his  Master,  he  will  take  upon  him 
the  form  of  a  servant,  that  he  may  deliver  those  who 
are  in  a  low  estate. 

To  those  who  have  come  into  liberty,  but  have  not 
yet  attained  perfect  love,  it  may  be  well  to  recall  the 
purpose  of  discipline.  Every  man  should  be  king 
over  himself.  Christ  insists  upon  the  supremacy  of 
the  whole  over  the  part,  when  he  commands  the 
cutting  off  or  plucking  out  of  an  offending  member 
of  the  body.  To  be  able  to  look  at  a  pleasure,  yet  to 
keep  it  at  arm’s  length  for  the  sake  of  a  brother,  is  the 

* 

highest  attainment  of  discipline.  The  disciplined  man 
enjoys  the  spoils  of  a  large  conquest ;  in  conquering 
himself  he  has  conquered  his  principal  foe.  He  can 
look  at  the  forbidden  tree,  acknowledge  that  it  is 
pleasant  to  the  eyes,  and,  probably,  a  tree  “  to  be 
desired  to  make  one  wise,”  and  yet  tell  the  damning' 
serpent  that  there  is  no  folly  so  great  as  the  wisdom 
which  comes  through  violating  love.  The  fear  is  that 
the  disciplinarian  may  become  ungenial  in  judgment. 
The  man  who  has  cut  off  his  right  hand  may  be 
tempted  to  think  that  other  men  should  cut  off  their 


THE  CHURCH  LEFT  IN  THE  WOULD.  1 5 1 

right  hands  ;  and  the  man  with  one  eye  may  think  it 
hard  that  other  people  should  have  two.  Christ  fore¬ 
saw  this,  and  constantly  turned  men  back  upon  them¬ 
selves  to  consider  what  was  wanted  by  their  own  pecu¬ 
liar  constitution,  and  he  gave  them  the  benefit  of  his 
own  prayers,  as  in  the  case  of  Simon  Peter,  for  whom 
he  specially  prayed  that  his  faith  might  not  fail.  One 
of  the  main  purposes  of  discipline  will  be  frustrated  if 
it  fail  to  give  men  a  firmer  control  over  their  critical 
faculty  when  they  institute  a  comparison  between 
themselves  and  others.  Censure  is  inconsistent  with 
philanthropy,  and  philanthropy  is  the  last  result  of  a 
perfect  discipline. 

The  disciplined  man  will  not  keep  men  from  evil 
by  shouting  moral  maxims  at  them,  as  the  modern 
church  has  been  doing  for  a  long  series  of  years. 
The  great  disciplinarian,  who  knew  both  how  to 
abound  and  how  to  be  abased,  who  kept  his  body 
under,  and  checked  himself  at  every  point,  lest,  after 
having  preached  to  others,  he  should  become  a  cast¬ 
away,  adopted  the  only  successful  method  of  main¬ 
taining  a  permanent  hold  upon  men  —  a  literal  tran¬ 
script  of  Christ’s  method,  —  u  Though  I  be  free  from 
all  men,  yet  have  I  made  myself  servant  unto  all,  that 
I  might  gain  the  more.  And  unto  the  Jews  I  became 
as  a  Jew,  that  I  might  gain  the  Jews ;  to  them  that  are 
under  the  law,  as  under  the  law,  that  I  might  gain 
them  that  are  under  the  law ;  to  them  that  are  without 
law,  as  without  law  (being  not  without  law  to  God, 
but  under  the  law  to  Christ),  that  I  might  gf  in  them 
that  are  without  law.  To  the  weak  became  I  as 
weak,  that  I  might  gain  the  weak :  I  am  made  all 


152 


ECCE  DEUS. 


things  to  all  men.”  This  is  the  fruit  of  discipline. 
Paul  looked  at  things  from  every  man’s  own  particu¬ 
lar  stand-point.  To  each  man  he  said,  u  I  shall  come 
round  to  your  point  of  view,  put  myself  in  your  cir¬ 
cumstances,  establish  a  common  sympathy,  and  so 
work  my  way  back  to  Jesus  Christ.”  This  gave  him 
a  marvellous  advantage.  When  a  man  goes  down  to 
teach,  he  takes  with  him  considerable  overplusage  of 
power ;  but  when  he  goes  up  to  teach,  he  goes  in  the 
wrong  direction,  and  strains  himself  greatly  to  the 
disgust  of  those  who  are  above  him.  The  only  true 
way  of  getting  up  is  by  going  down  ;  the  way  to  gain 
life  is  to  lose  it.  “  Thou  fool,  that  which  thou  sowest 
is  not  quickened  except  it  die.” 

The  church  (now  understanding  by  that  term  the 
organized  sects)  is  not  willing  to  “lose  its  life”  that 
it  may  “  gain  ”  others ;  hence  it  is  the  weakest,  and, 
humanly  speaking,  the  most  despicable  institution 
which  men  are  now  tolerating.  It  is  afraid  of  amuse¬ 
ment  ;  it  is  afraid  of  heresy  ;  it  is  afraid  of  contamina¬ 
tion  ;  it  is  afraid  of  sinners ;  it  is  afraid  of  the  devil. 
All  this  must  come  from  a  low  condition  of  vitality. 
It  shuts  itself  up  within  thick  walls,  sings  its  hymns, 
hears  its  periodical  platitudes,  and  then  skulks  into  the 
common  streets,  as  if  afraid  lest  the  multitude  should 
know  what  it  had  been  doing.  Nothing  can  be  more 
un-Christlike  that  is  not  positively  devilish.  The 
worst  feature  of  this  cowardly  fear  is  that  it  is  often 
expressed  in  a  bad  spirit,  venom  being  mistaken  for 
strength.  The  sin  is  not  so  much  in  the  thing  said, 
as  in  the  way  of  saying  it.  It  is  forgotten,  too,  by 
the  sect-church,  that  there  are  other  sins  than  those 


THE  CHURCH  LEFT  IN  THE  WORLD.  153 

which  reel  in  the  streets  or  swing  on  the  gallows. 
The  man  who  makes  a  long  prayer,  and  then  op¬ 
presses  the  hireling,  is  as  an  unclean  beast  in  the  sanc¬ 
tuary  ;  so  is  the  man  who  would  not  part  with  a  leaf 
from  his  catechism,  yet  makes  his  home  a  very  hell  by 
a  fiendish  temper ;  so  is  the  man  who  spends  his  life 
in  scenting  the  heresies  of  doctrine,  and  yet  cultivates 
the  blacker  heresies  of  life.  Such  a  course  brings 
Christ  into  disrepute.  He  is  crucified  by  those  who 
bear  his  name.  Christ’s  work  must  be  done  in 
Christ’s  spirit,  and  in  Christ’s  way.  He  went  among 
men  turning  the  water  into  wine,  and  celebrating  the 
prodigal’s  return  with  music  and  dancing.  The  sect- 
church  has  imagined  that  it  must  stand  aloof  from  bad 
men  lest  it  should  receive  contamination.  This  is  a 
melancholy  confession  of  weakness,  bringing  the  most 
undeserved  and  humiliating  discredit  upon  the  power 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  human  soul.  It  is  as  if  the 
salt  should  stand  aloof  from  the  flesh  lest  it  should  be 
corrupted  ;  or  as  if  the  light  should  stand  aloof  from 
the  darkness  lest  it  should  be  obscured.  Christ  never 
shut  himself  up  from  the  wicked,  and  yet  never 
seemed  to  be  so  far  from  them  as  when  in  their  very 
midst.  Other  men’s  refinement  became  vulgarity 
when  contrasted  with  his  gentleness ;  their  wisdom 
became  folly  under  the  lustre  of  his  revelations  ;  and 
Solomon’s  grandeur  faded  beside  the  lily  which  Christ 
pointed  out.  When  bad  men  meet  alone  they  lose 
the  advantage  of  moral  contrast,  and  measuring  them¬ 
selves  by  themselves  they  commit  the  falsehood  of 
exaggeration.  Christ  saved  men  from  this  in  his  own 
day,  and  would  save  them  from  it  now,  but  for  the 


*54 


ECCE  DEUS. 


narrowness  of  sects.  The  coarsest  man  feels  a  meat 
lire  of  restraint  in  the  presence  of  a  gentle,  pure 
woman  ;  what  might  not  the  evil  sections  of  society 
feel  in  the  presence  of  the  embodied  holiness  of  the 
Infinite  God?  “No  man  lighteth  a  candle  to  put  il 
under  a  bushel,  but  he  setteth  it  on  a  candlestick,  that 
it  may  give  light  to  all  that  are  in  the  house.”  There 
is  a  good  deal  in  the  setting,  as  well  as  in  the  candle  ; 
a  few  inches  on  this  side  or  that  may  make  all  the 
difference  between  usefulness  and  uselessness. 

Thus  we  have  incompletely  sketched  the  position  of 
the  church  in  the  world,  and  shown  how  the  church  is 
to  be  protected  from  the  evils  by  which  it  is  sur¬ 
rounded.  Evil  is  to  be  extinguished,  not  by  mere 
verbal  denunciation,  but  by  the  spirit  of  goodness,  the 
Holy  Spirit.  Darkness  will  not  be  removed  by 
anathema,  but  by  light.  Individual  liberty  is  to  be 
regulated  by  common  philanthropy.  The  church  is 
to  be  kept  from  selfishness  by  sacrifice.  This  is 
Christ’s  method,  as  illustrated  in  particular  cases  by 
his  great  interpreter  the  apostle  Paul.  Christ  gave  his 
followers  power  to  go  everywhere,  and  to  take  ‘up 
even  deadly  things  without  being  hurt.  Pie  had  no 
fear  of  their  being  corrupted,  but  gave  them  energy 
to  save  others  from  corruption  ;  his  own  Word  dwell¬ 
ing  in  them  richly.  He  sent  them  as  sheep  among 
wolves,  with  wisdom  and  gentleness  as  their  defence. 
They  were  to  pursue  evil  persons  in  every  direction, 
and  to  “torment”  them  “before  the  time,”  by  the 
presence  of  an  august  yet  genial  purity.  They  were 
safe,  because  their  Lord  was  with  them.  Their 
power  was  moral,  —  not  the  power  of  purse,  or  scrip, 


THE  CHURCH  LEFT  IN  THE  WORLD.  1 55 

or  sword,  or  many  coats,  which  exercise  so  illegiti¬ 
mate  an  influence  in  the  world.  Not  what  was 
but  what  was  in,  was  their  strength.  We  look  for 
the  same  self-repression  to-day,  the  same  moral  ma¬ 
jesty,  producing  the  same  startling  contrast.  Where 
is  it?  Hidden,  no  doubt,  in  some  degree  under  the 
folds  of  an  elaborate  civilization,  but  still,  we  doubt 
not,  in  existence  ;  not  all  in  this  sect  or  in  that,  but 
partly  ;  widely  scattered,  yet  not  beyond  the  call  of  the 
Voice  which  brought  order  out  of  chaos.  We  cannot 
take  so  discouraging  a  view  of  human  society  as  to 
believe  that  Christ’s  influence  is  diminishing.  If  it  is 
less  demonstrative,  it  may  not  be  less  vital.  His 
church  has  not  slipped  out  of  the  world  into  a  secret 
and  nameless  grave,  though  its  original  compactness 
and  accessibility  are  not  what  they  were.  The  very 
inquiry  which  men  are  now  pressing  with  unexampled 
urgency,  is  a  good  sign  ;  when  the  anxiety  is  extreme, 
the  satisfaction  will  not  be  long  delayed.  There  may 
be  a  law  of  subsidence  or  rest  in  the  progression  of 
the  Christian  society.  The  tide  may  be  advancing, 
notwithstanding  the  refluent  wave.  There  is,  too,  an 
intensive  as  well  as  an  extensive  operation  of  life  ;  so 
that  what  is  wanting  in  demonstrativeness  may  be 
made  up  in  penetration.  Anyhow,  Christ’s  vitality 
cannot  be  lost  in  the  world ;  the  seed  of  the  second 
Adam  shall  be  as  the  sand  upon  the  sea-shore,  in¬ 
numerable. 


CHAPTER  XI. 


CHRIST  ADJUSTING  HUMAN  RELATIONS. 
IIRIST  prayed  that  his  disciples  might  be  kept 


from  evil,  but  he  had  also  a  work  to  accomplish 
on  a  larger  scale ;  not  only  had  he  to  keep  the  disci¬ 
ples  who  were  called  by  himself  personally,  but  to 
extend  their  numbers ;  and  we  propose  now  to  con¬ 
sider  how  he  intended  to  do  this,  grouping  our  sug¬ 
gestions  under  the  general  title  given  above.  To  say 
that  Christ  found  human  relations  disorganized,  would 
be  to  put  human  history  into  the  tritest  form  of  ex¬ 
pression  ;  yet  that  inclusive  fact  lies  at  the  bottom  of 
his  mission  and  plan  among  men.  The  man  who  was 
made  “  upright,”  found  out  many  “  inventions,”  but 
among  them  all  was  not  that  of  regaining  the  equilib¬ 
rium  which  he  had  lost.  If  man  had  not  destroyed 
his  nature,  he  had  disarranged  his  proportions.  A 
very  subtle  thing  is  the  equipoise.  An  extra  handful 
of  dust  on  the  side  of  a  planet  might  endanger  the 
universe. 

At  the  risk  of  violating  a  strictly  logical  progression 
(though  not  more  so  than  Christ  himself  apparently 
did),  it  may  be  useful  to  look  at  once  at  the  work 
which  Christ  accomplished  in  adjusting  the  relations 
between  man  and  man;  which  will  give  us,  from 
another  point,  Christ’s  view  of  human  nature,  and 


CHRIST  ADJUSTING  HUMAN  RELATIONS.  157 

$ 

place  something  concrete  and  immediately  appreciable 
before  us.  It  is  of  primary  importance  to  remark 
that  Christ  never  depreciated  manhood  in  any  of  its 
forms  or  conditions,  but,  on  the  contrary,  continually 
spoke  of  man  with  reverence  and  affection  ;  not  of  the 
Jew  as  a  Jew,  or  the  Roman  as  a  Roman,  but  strictly 
of  man  as  man ;  thus  incidentally  illustrating  the 
meaning  and  force  of  his  own  appellation,  the  Son  of 
Man.  In  one  of  his  most  touching  parables,  he  re¬ 
buked  Jewish  exclusiveness  with  great  dignity,  yet  in 
a  manner  which  must  have  been  most  galling  to  the 
haughty  men  who  heard  him.  It  was  the  priest  who 
passed  by,  and  the  Levite  ;  but  it  was  a  contemned 
Samaritan  who  stopped  and  proved  himself  a  practi¬ 
cal  philanthropist.  Would  any  other  Jew  but  Christ 
have  so  introduced  a  Samaritan?  And  would  Christ 
himself,  if  he  had  not  been  more  than  a  Jew?  On 
another  occasion,  he  declared  that  the  faith  of  a 
heathen  woman  was  greater  thar.  he  had  ever  seen  in 
Israel ;  and  as  he  cast  his  eye  over  the  nations  of  the 
earth,  taking  in  his  comprehensive  survey  “  regions 
Caesar  never  knew,”  he  boldly  told  the  supposed  favor¬ 
ites  of  heaven  that  men  should  cmne  from  the  east  and 
from  the  west,  from  the  north  and  from  the  south,  and 
sit  down  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  When  his  con¬ 
temporaries  called  themselves  the  children  of  Abra¬ 
ham,  John  struck  the  boast  off  their  vaunting  lips,  by 
telling  them  that  God  was  able  to  raise  up  out  of 
the  very  stones  children  to  Abraham.  In  the  same 
manner,  Christ  showed  that  manhood  was  not  a 
geographical  term,  having  one  meaning  on  this  coast 
and  another  on  that,  but  that  it  was  overflowing  with 


ECCE  DEUS. 


*53 

moral  significance,  and  stood  in  very  intimate  relation 
to  God. 

One  of  his  longest  discourses  was  delivered  upon 
the  subject  of  the  relations  between  man  and  man, 
and  man  and  his  kingdom.  The  old  and  vexed  ques¬ 
tion  of  gradation  came  up  among  the  disciples,  and 
was  referred  to  the  Master  for  decision.  The  disciples 
would  soon  have  rent  the  new  kingdom  by  this  ques¬ 
tion  of  position,  had  their  leader  not  quenched  their 
carnal  aspirations,  and  showed  them  that  they  were 
all  equally  wrong  in  their  notions.  Rulership  has 
always  been  one  of  the  hardest  problems  which  society 
has  had  to  solve,  and  to-day  it  lies  at  the  root  of  all 
war.  How  can  there  be  a  kingdom  without  ruler- 
ship?  The  disciples  naturally  pondered  the  inquiry, 
and  entertained  some  exciting  speculations  on  the 
point.  When  the  matter  so  agitated  them  that  they 
could  no  longer  keep  it  to  themselves,  they  abruptly 
laid  it  before  Christ ;  whereupon  he  delivered  a  copi¬ 
ous  and  impressive  address  on  human  nature.  He 
called  a  little  child  unto  him  and  set  him  in  the  midst, 
and  said  —  You  trouble  yourselves  a  good  deal  about 
greatness  in  my  kingdom  ;  now  let  me  tell  you  that 
except  ye  be  converted  —  that  is  to  say,  radically 
changed  in  your  self-estimation  —  and  become  as  sim¬ 
ple,  trustful,  and  unconscious  of  your  own  importance 
as  this  little  child,  you  shall  not  so  much  as  even  enter 
into  that  kingdom,  much  less  have  any  distinguished 
position  in  it :  great,  swollen,  self-idolizing  men  cannot 
be  admitted ;  the  gate  is  strait ;  only  child-like  men 
may  pass  through.  —  Nothing  could  be  more  foreign 
to  the  spirit  of  carnal  ambition  than  such  an  answer. 


CHRIST  ADJUSTING  HUMAN  RELATIONS  1 59 

It  did  not  leave  the  subject  open  for  discussion.  No 
craft  could  wriggle  out  of  so  positive  a  doctrine.  But 
the  text  was  not  exhausted.  The  little  child  was  still 
there,  and  Christ  continued  in  the  most  sweet  and 
captivating  manner  to  discourse  respecting  the  great 
value  which  he  attached  to  manhood.  In  effect  he 
said  —  Human  nature  is  not  to  measured  by  what 
is  accidental,  but  by  what  is  essential ;  you  must  value 
man  as  man,  even  though  he  be  as  ]ow  in  the  scale  a > 
it  is  possible  for  any  human  creature  to  be.  The 
image  of  God,  though  much  defaced,  is  upon  the 
lowest  man  ;  if  you  despise  him  you  iespise  me,  fo* 
the  Son  of  Man  is  come  to  seek  that  which  is  lost ;  he 
will  have  to  go  a  long  way  down  for  it,  ^ut  it  must  be 
found.  If  you  undervalue  man,  you  undervalue  my 
mission  and  reproach  the  wisdom  of  God  *  but  if  you 
value  man  as  man,  apart  from  all  that  is  accidentally 
repulsive,  and  receive  him  in  my  name,  y^u  receive 
me;  and  whoso  receiveth  me  receiveth  not  m^  but  him 
that  sent  me.  We  all  go  together,  God,  Christ,  and 
lowest  man  ;  take  one  and  you  take  all,  reject  and 
you  reject  all.  Take  heed  that  ye  despise  not  Are  of 
these  little  ones,  for  I  say  unto  you  that  in  heaver  ffieii 
angels  do  always  behold  the  face  of  my  Father  wuich 
is  in  heaven.  Do  not  look  high,  as  though  men  w<°**e 
to  be  judged  by  their  stature  ;  so  important,  so  sublinr% 
is  humanity,  apart  altogether  from  culture  and  deve*  • 
opment,  that  whoso  shall  offend  one  of  these  little  one1- 
that  believe  in  me,  it  were  better  for  him  that  a  mill 
stone  were  hanged  about  his  neck,  and  that  he  were 
drowned  in  the  depths  of  the  sea. 

Such  talk  about  human  nature  was  new.  Up  to 


ECCE  DEUS. 


I  bo 

this  time  men  had  hardly  advanced  farther  than  to  a 
civil  regard  for  those  who  belonged  to  their  own  par 
ticular  nation.  But  Christ  set  man  above  the  nation ; 
the  gold  above  the  inscription  which  had  been  stamped 
upon  it.  This  one  circumstance  is  a  commanding 
plea  in  support  of  the  divine  origin  of  the  Christian 
religion,  and  is  in  exquisite  accord  with  the  whole 
mystery  called  Christ,  so  far  as  we  have  been  able  to 
trace  it.  To  reject  Christ  is,  speaking  merely  in  view 
of  his  humanity,  to  reject  the  most  consistent  and 
powerful  vindicator  of  the  dignity  and  value  of  human 
nature  that  ever  challenged  the  attention  of  the  world. 
If  we  cannot  at  once  join  him  in  some  of  the  higher 
ranges  of  his  discourse,  we  may  at  least  sit  down  at  this 
point,  and  learn  his  view  of  the  capability  and  worth  of 
our  own  nature.  Even  Cicero  himself  apologized  to 
a  correspondent  for  referring  to  the  death  of  a  slave, 
who  had  died  in  his  family.  It  is,  then,  to  be  distinctly 
recognized  as  a  primary  fact  in  Christ’s  teaching  that 
Christ  will  not  allow  any  man,  how  sunken  soever  he 
be,  to  be  despised.  No  word  of  contempt  can  be  per¬ 
mitted  ;  not  even  a  thought  that  tends  in  the  direction 
of  scorn  :  “  Whosoever  shall  say,  Thou  fool,  shall  be  in 
danger  of  hell  fire.”  Not  only  were  men  to  love  those 
who  loved  them,  but  to  love  their  enemies,  bless  those 
that  cursed  them,  and  pray  for  those  that  despitefully 
used  them  ;  and  this  they  were  to  do  for  a  most  re¬ 
markable  and  suggestive  reason,  “  That  ye  may  be  the 
children  of  your  Father,  who  maketh  his  sun  to  rise  on 
the  evil  and  on  the  good,  and  sendeth  rain  upon  the 
just  and  unjust.”  When  men  made  a  feast  they  were 
to  call  the  poor,  the  maimed,  the  lame,  the  blind,  and 
they  would  be  blessed  in  so  doing,  for  the  guests  could 


CHRIS  f  ADJUSTING  HUMAN  RELATIONS.  l6l 

not  recompense  them,  but  they  should  be  recompensed 
at  the  resurrection  of  the  just.  The  words  are  now 
so  familiar,  and  have,  indeed,  produced  so  great  an 
effect  upon  modern  society,  that  it  is  difficult  to  esti¬ 
mate  their  influence  upon  the  men  to  whom  they  were 
addressed,  or  the  moral  courage  which  was  required 
to  utter  them  in  the  presence  of  the  most  exclusive 
social  system  in  all  civilization.  The  poor  were  not 
to  be  talked  about  as  a  farmer  would  talk  about  bog 
land,  but  to  be  treated  as  sharers  with  the  greatest  of 
a  common  human  nature  ;  and  the  divine  element  that 
was  in  them  was  not  only  to  save  them  from  contempt, 
but  to  bring  them  into  brotherhood  with  the  foremost 
men.  But  brotherhood  in  its  true  sense  cannot  come 
from  the  outside.  There  is  a  vital  difference  between 
patronage  and  brotherhood.  Nothing  is  easier  than 
for  a  man  to  conceal  his  pride  under  the  forms  of 
humility  ;  actually  never  to  stand  so  high  in  his  own 
estimation  as  when  seen  in  the  public  highway  arm 
in  arm  with  rags  and  wretchedness.  He  then  says, 
“  Look  at  me  !  this  is  humility ;  I  am  not  ashamed  to 
be  seen  thus.”  It  requires  less  moral  courage  to  pick 
a  beggar  out  of  the  ditch  than  to  be  seen  on  friendly 
terms  with  an  honest  man  who  earns  weekly  wages. 
In  the  one  case  the  very  extremity  i&  its  own  defence  ; 
in  the  other  there  is  room  for  several  undesirable  infer¬ 
ences  on  the  part  of  genteel  observers.  To-day  the 
sect-church  has  conceived  an  extraordinary  liking  for 
institutions  which  touch  the  lowest  strata  of  society ; 
the  nobility  of  the  land  refreshes  itself  by  teaching  the 
ragged  and  homeless  Arabs  of  England  —  a  ve;y 
beautiful  and  even  heavenly  thing  when  done  with  a 
pure  motive,  yet  covering  a  most  seductive  temptation 


162 


ECCE  DEUS. 


to  confound  patronage  with  brotherhood.  It  is  pos¬ 
sible  to  like  the  rags  more  than  the  human  nature  — 
possible  for  the  rich  man  to  give  Lazarus  a  coat,  and 
yet  to  grind  the  face  of  his  own  servants  ;  and  by  so 
much  as  this  is  possible,  society  should  drill  itself  in 
the  difficult  doctrine  that  God  hath  made  of  one  blood, 
and  yvill  call  to  one  judgment,  all  nations  of  men. 
Society  is  very  careful  of  its  extremities,  —  its  purple 
and  its  rags,  but  midway  is  there  not  a  great  cemetery 
filled  with  living  hearts,  whose  only  hope  is  death? 
Is  it,  then,  really  human  nature  or  human  circum¬ 
stances  on  which  benevolence  is  operating?  Society 
has  to  be  saved  from  mistaking  patronage  for  philan¬ 
thropy,  and  can  only  be  so  saved  by  a  deep  study  of 
the  life  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Such  a  civilization  as  that  of  the  nineteenth  century 
brings  society  very  much  under  the  influence  of  the 
richest  culture  and  refinement.  The  spirit  of  the  age 
is  aesthetic.  Even  utility  now  goes  abroad  gilded  and 
brocaded  most  elaborately.  The  humblest  industry  has 
been  taught  to  aspire  to  a  position  in  the  temple  of  the 
arts  ;  and  nation  challenges  nation  to  a  comparison 
of  handiwork.  Under  such  circumstances  there  is  a 
special  temptation  to  worship  faculty,  skill,  or  genius, 
—  the  attributes  rather  than  the  nature  of  man.  We 
now  ask  for  certificates  of  merit,  and  make  manhood 
prove  itself  by  competitive  examinations.  And  now 
that  certificates,  medals,  and  titles  are  so  plentiful,  it  is  a 
bare  chance  if  the  uncertificated  man  escape  contempt. 
Men  are  industriously  trained  to  criticise  the  external ; 
they  are  learned  in  all  artificialism  ;  inexorably  exact¬ 
ing  in  matters  of  dress,  posture,  and  pronunciation. 


CHRIST  ADJUSTING  HUMAN  RELATIONS.  1 63 

What,  then,  can  the  unconventional  man  do?  What 
if  he  still  be  “lost”  ?  Then  the  ministry  of  Christ 
becomes  his  hope,  for  he  never  forgets  the  “  lost  ”  man, 
but  goes  after  him  till  he  is  found.  Refinement  brings 
its  own  perils.  When  refinement  boasts  of  itself,  it 
becomes  vulgarity.  True  refinement  is  a  question  of 
the  heart,  not  an  attainment  of  the  schools  ;  under  the 
roughest  exterior  the  most  tender  sensibilities  may 
throb,  and  under  the  finest  there  may  be  dross  and 
dust.  After  all,  then,  the  question  is  fundamental : 
man,  not  circumstances  ;  man  as  God  made  rum,  not 
as  he  has  made  himself. 

A  true  conception  of  the  value  of  human  nature  lies 
at  the  very  foundation  of  Christ’s  earthly  mission. 
The  term  salvation  is  important  only  so  far  as  human 
nature  is  important.  The  Cross  is  the  only  adequate 
interpretation  of  man.  Would  Christ,  from  all  that 
we  have  seen  of  him  in  this  rapid  examination  only, 
have  died  for  a  trifle?  Gather  a  multitude  of  the 
worst  characters  that  can  be  found,  and  let  the  heart 
say  how  much  of  its  blood  it  would  shed  for  their  ele¬ 
vation.  Not  a  drop,  probably.  It  cannot  see  far 
enough.  It  sees  the  worst,  not  the  best.  Only  God 
can  value  man  ;  he  knows  how  he  made  him ;  what 
music  there  is  yet  in  the  untouched  chords  of  the 
human  soul ;  he  knows  how  terrible  would  be  his  own 
loneliness  if  the  child  of  his  heart  were  lost.  But 
some  men  are  vulgar :  true,  yet  they  are  men  still,  but 
must  be  refined.  All  the  gifts  of  man  are  to  have  a 
downward  influence  as  well  as  an  upward  tendency. 
Refinement  is  to  refine  others.  Culture  is  to  be  an  in¬ 
spiration,  not  a  terror  to  those  who  are  still  rude.  The 


164 


ECCE  EEUS. 


criminal  is  to  see  in  the  judge  what  he  himself  might 
have  been,  and  what  even  yet  he  may  become.  The 
chaste  woman  is  to  be  the  hope,  not  the  dread,  of  her 
fallen  sister.  Education  is  not  to  enclose  itself  in  an 
unapproachable  hermitage,  but  to  move  among  the 
rude  humanities  with  a  subduing  and  inspiring  grace. 
This  is  the  very  spirit  of  Jesus  Christ.  He  said,  u  It 
is  more  blessed  to  give  than  to  receive,”  and  that  the 
chief  of  his  disciples  was  to  be  servant  of  all.  Merely, 
then,  as  a  matter  of  argument,  it  must  be  allowed  that 
Jesus  Christ,  immeasurably  beyond  any  other  teacher, 
recognized  the  greatness  of  human  nature.  How  did 
he  come  by  this  unparalleled  estimate?  Certainly  he 
had  no  inducement  to  flatter  it  in  return  for  his  per¬ 
sonal  reception  on  the  earth.  Sometimes  pleasant  cir¬ 
cumstances  force  weak  observers  into  an  exaggeration 
of  praise ;  but  in  spite  of  the  harshest  reception  Christ 
affirmed  that  God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his 
only-begotten  Son  for  its  salvation.  His  verdict  is  thus 
the  more  important  by  reason  of  the  conditions  under 
which  it  was  given.  Had  he  been  asked  to  give  an 
opinion  of  human  nature  before  he  assumed  it,  his 
opinion  might,  on  easily  understood  grounds,  have 
been  favorable  ;  but  after  he  has  lain  in  the  manger, 
been  exposed  to  hunger  and  thirst  and  cold,  been 
smitten  on  the  face  and  condemned  as  a  felon,  when 
he  has  been  laughed  at  as  a  fanatic  or  shunned  as  a 
madman,  he  speaks  of  human  nature  with  the  fond 
tenderness  and  lofty  reverence  of  one  who  was  pre¬ 
paring  to  die  for  it.  Something  more  than  human 
must  explain  this  humanness.  Every  other  man  falls 
short  of  it :  how  came  a  Galilean  peasant  to  have  it 


CHRIST  ADJUSTING  HUMAN  RELATIONS.  1 6^ 

all?  It  is  an  affront  to  common  sense  to  say  that  it  is 
an  imaginary  sketch;  but  even  if  it  be,  what  then? 
The  problem  is  not  solved  ;  for  as  only  a  poet  can 
write  a  poem,  so  only  a  Christ  could  have  conceived  a 
Christ. 

The  first  thing,  then,  that  is  before  us  is  Christ’s  ad¬ 
justment  of  man’s  relation  to  man,  giving  us  deeper 
insight  into  humanity,  inspiring  mutual  love,  and 
strengthening  the  common  trust  of  society.  There  is 
another  phase  of  his  adjustment  of  man,  which,  though 
less  commanding,  is  yet  one  of  great  interest  —  that  is, 
his  way  of  setting  them  towards  nature .  Christ  walked 
much  in  the  open  country  with  his  disciples,  and  gave 
them  a  new  method  of  reading  the  landscape  and  all 
natural  objects.  He  turned  nature  into  a  great  book 
of  illustration  ;  he  showed  that  every  bush  was  aflame 
with  consuming  fire  and  vocal  with  the  utterances  of 
God.  He  made  all  nature  preach  the  doctrine  of  trust 
in  the  divine  Fatherhood.  He  spoke  of  the  lilies  as 
pledges  of  God’s  care,  and  pointed  to  the  fowls  as  an 
illustration  of  God’s  watchfulness  over  all  life.  He 
bade  his  disciples  consider  these  things,  and  lay  them 
to  heart  as  defences  against  distrust  or  apprehension. 
Who  knows  how  much  life  there  is  in  a  lily?  Who 
can  measure  the  distance  between  God  and  a  flower 
of  the  field?  What  connection  there  is  between  the 
lily  and  the  man  we  have  not  yet  been  sufficiently  edu¬ 
cated  to  discern,  but  Christ’s  lesson  is  pointless  if  there 
is  not  a  line  common  to  all  kinds  of  life,  running 
through  and  binding  all.  It  would  be  useless  to  u  con¬ 
sider  the  lilies  ”  if  they  and  the  considerers  had  no 
point  in  common,  though  in  the  present  state  of  our 


ECCE  DEUS. 


1 66 

faculties  it  may  be  inappreciable ;  as  well  might 
the  beggar  say  that  he  would  “consider”  the  door¬ 
plates  of  the  city  because  the  hands  that  burnished 
them  might  feed  him.  The  explanation  is  that  the 
universe  is  a  series,  and  that  he  who  cares  for  the  least 
will  care  for  the  greatest ;  that  simplicity  and  beauty 
and  fragrance  and  every  form  of  life  are  all  of  God,  and 
that  the  Creator  of  all  is  also  the  servant  of  all.  Christ 
thus  showed  not  only  the  refining  and  stimulating 
power  of  nature,  but  the  perfect  unity  of  the  Divine 
government,  by  teaching  that  the  God  of  the  flowers 
is  the  God  of  the  human  race,  and  that  He  who  cared 
for  the  ephemeral  leaf  could  not  forget  the  immortal 
man.  This  lesson  is  invaluable  not  only  for  its  imme¬ 
diate  practical  comfort,  but  as  warranting  the  applica¬ 
tion  of  inductive  reasoning  to  the  Divine  nature  as 
well  as  to  Divine  processes  of  education  and  govern¬ 
ment.  In  syntax  the  grammarians  have  put  as  and  so 
in  relation,  but  Christ  teaches  us  to  put  them  together 
in  the  deepest  questions  of  experimental  religion  and 
speculative  theology,  and  thus  climb  our  way  up  to 
the  very  seat  of  the  Eternal.  He  brings  men  very 
near  to  God  when,  in  a  parallel  which  would  be  blas¬ 
phemous  if  it  were  not  true,  he  says,  “  If  ye  .  .  .  how 
much  more  your  Father  ?”  —  the  plane  is  one,  though 
the  intermediate  points  are  immeas'lirably  distant. 
Christ  says  —  Begin  with  the  lily  and  reason  upward 
to  the  absolute,  and  then  descend  and  teach  lessons  of 
loving  and  reverent  trust  in  God  to  anxious  men,  who 
are  foolishly  carrying  all  the  weight  of  to-morrow  on 
shoulders  already  pressed  by  the  burden  of  to-day. 
But  can  the  conscious  learn  from  the  unconscious? 


CHRIST  ADJUSTING  HUMAN  RELATIONS.  1 67 

Can  the  man  learn  anything  from  the  lily?  Enough, 
to  know  that  the  lily  and  the  man  eat  at  the  same 
table,  and  quench  their  thirst  at  a  common  fountain. 
We  have  no  answer  to  enigmas  respecting  the  con¬ 
sciousness  of  nature  ;  but  as  Christ  set  men  down  by 
the  lily  to  consider  it,  they  may  justly  feel  that  there  is 
a  mystery  in  life  of  the  lowest  kinds  which  compels 
the  conclusion,  solemn  yet  gladsome,  that  the  whole 
earth  is  sacred  with  the  presence  of  God  —  the  very 
gate  of  heaven. 

The  third  relation  which  Christ  came  to  adjust  (the 
first,  indeed,  in  order  of  importance)  was  the  relation 
of  man  to  God  ;  and  in  the  consideration  of  this  point 
we  shall  ascertain  something  of  what  may  be  distinc¬ 
tively  termed  Christ’s  theology — Christ’s  view  and 
representation  of  God.  Christ  revealed  God,  not  by 
direct  religious  teaching  alone,  but  by  the  whole  tenor 
of  his  course  among  men.  It  might  have  been  sup¬ 
posed,  had  the  matter  been  submitted  to  conjecture, 
that  in  the  first  instance  Christ  would  have  delivered 
elaborate  discourses  concerning  the  Godhead,  and, 
by  frank  statements  about  heaven  and  his  own  pre¬ 
incarnate  position  therein,  have  met  and  satisfied  the 
natural  curiosity  of  his  hearers.  It  does  not  appear 
that  Christ  adopted  the  most  likely  means  to  accom¬ 
plish  his  work  ;  on  the  contrary,  he  seems  to  have 
done  everything  to  excite  suspicion  and  prejudice,  to 
have  tantalized  expectation,  and  mocked  the  efforts  of 
natural  reasoning.  We  have  now  to  deal  with  his 
method  of  revealing  God,  and  putting  man  in  a  right 
relation  to  him  ;  and  we  venture  to  say  that  however 
far  conjecture  may  be  disappointed  in  that  method,  it 


ECCE  DEUS. 


1 68 

will  be  allowed  that  no  teacher  ever  represented  God 
in  so  pleasing  and  attractive  a  manner.  There  is 
depth  enough  of  solemnity,  too.  No  hearer  can  feel 
a  disposition  towards  levity  while  listening  to  Christ’s 
expositions  of  God’s  nature.  God,  according  to  those 
expositions,  is  not  only  unseen,  but  invisible  ;  no  man 
hath  seen  him,  only  the  Son  ;  no  man  but  the  Son  can 
reveal  him :  here  is  majesty,  —  here  a  feeling  of  awe 
steals  over  the  listener.  Assuming  the  truth  of  these 
statements,  one  conclusion  cannot  be  escaped,  viz., 
that  all  previous  relations  and  all  subsequent  doctrines 
respecting  the  Godhead  must  be  judged  by  Christ’s 
words,  and  accepted  only  so  far  as  they  are  consonant 
with  them.  No  greater  claim  could  be  asserted  by 
any  teacher  than  to  be  the  only  revealer  of  God.  This 
point  should  be  dwelt  upon  with  most  careful  reflec¬ 
tion.  When  a  man  separates  himself  from  all  other 
men,  and  even  confines  God  himself  to  one  instrument 
of  revelation,  he  assumes  a  position  dangerous  by  its 
very  extremity,  unless  the  claim  be  upheld  by  irref¬ 
ragable  and  universally  appreciable  proofs. 

From  Christ’s  teaching  respecting  God  we  learn,  in 
so  many  words,  that  God  is  a  Spirit,  and  that  God  is 
a  Father,  —  really  the  only  two  things  that  men 
require  to  know  about  him,  all  else  being  involved 
in  those  designations.  In  teaching  these  doctrines, 
Christ  said  that  spirit  must  be  met  by  spirit,  and 
therefore  men  must  be  born  again  ;  and,  secondly,  that 
fatherhood  on  the  part  of  God  must  be  met  by  sonship 
on  the  part  of  man,  and  therefore  that  he  had  himself 
come  amongst  men  as  God’s  Son.  These  high  revela¬ 
tions  could  not  be  understood  at  once,  and  therefore  he 


CHRIST  ADJUSTING  HUMAN  RELATIONS. 


approached  them  from  distant  points,  always,  how¬ 
ever,  keeping  his  eye  steadily  upon  them.  Healing 
the  body  was  an  alphabetic  way  of  saying,  “  Ye  must 
be  born  again  ;  ”  ministering  to  human  want  was  the 
same  way  of  saying,  “God  is  your  Father.”  He 
began  at  the  lowest  accessible  point,  and  pursued  his 
way  to  the  ultimate  truths.  An  illustration  of  this 
happy  method  of  graduating  philanthropic  service  is 
given  in  one  of  the  most  dramatic  and  exciting 
chapters  in  the  New  Testament.  In  that  chapter 
the  hero  says,  “  Whether  he  be  a  sinner  or  no  I  know 
not ;  one  thing  I  know,  whereas  I  was  blind,  now  I 
see.”  This  “one  thing”  was  the  rock  from  which  the 
man  could  not  be  displaced,  and  he  was  determined 
to  stand  there  until  he  should  be  called  higher.  Here 
is  Christ’s  plan  of  always  being  behind  a  man  with  a 
fact,  and  in  front  of  him  with  a  doctrine.  The  church 
is  exposed  to  the  peril  of  taking  the  doctrine  into  its 
care  and  leaving  the  fact,  —  a  plan  of  service  as  ill 
adapted  to  the  temper  and  condition  of  society  now  as 
it  was  in  the  days  of  Christ.  Men  must  be  met  at  the 
points  where  remedial  ideas  are  most  needed  and  will 
be  best  understood.  The  blind  man  needs  something 
more  than  “  the  concord  of  sweet  sounds  ;  ”  in  his  case 
effort  must  be  directed  to  the  eye,  not  to  the  ear.  The 
man  who  is  perishing  of  hunger  needs  bread  most, 
not  doctrine  or  prayer.  The  soul  that  is  possessed 
with  a  devil  must  first  be  dispossessed,  then  taught 
divine  doctrines.  Instrumentalities  must  be  adapted 
to  circumstances.  This  was  certainly  Christ’s  plan 
of  movement  —  not  in  a  sudden  and  startling  manner, 
bewildering  the  understanding  with  a  recondite  dog- 

8 


170 


ECCE  PEUS. 


ma,  but  quietly  joining  man  at  the  most  accessible 
point,  and  charming  him  into  deeper  companionship, 
until  he  who  began  as  a  needy  client  remained  as  a 
consecrated  disciple.  Christ’s  skill  in  adaptation  is 
illustrated  sharply  by  the  answer  which  he  returned  to 
John’s  inquiry :  “  The  blind  receive  their  sight,  and 
the  lame  walk ;  the  lepers  are  cleansed,  and  the  deaf 
hear,”  —  that  is  to  say,  every  man  found  in  Christ 
“the  piece  which  was  lost:”  the  deaf  were  not 
sharpened  in  vision,  they  received  their  'hearing ;  the 
blind  were  not  quickened  in  hearing,  they  received 
their  sight ;  the  leper  was  not  heightened  in  stature,  he 
was  cleansed  of  his  leprosy.  By  so  working,  it  was 
indeed  sometimes  difficult  to  see  the  exact  relation  of 
the  physical  deed  to  the  spiritual  purpose  of  Christ’s 
mission  — viz.,  to  reveal  the  Father.  We  are  tempted 
to  become  impatient  with  Christ  as  he  devotes  so 
much  attention  to  details :  it  seems  almost  a  waste  of 
time  for  a  man  who  came  to  save  a  world  to  be  linger¬ 
ing  over  a  special  case  of  disease.  Could  the  blind 
man  not  have  had  his  soul  saved  without  first  having 
his  eyes  open?  If  not,  what  becomes  of  the  blind 
men  of  to-day?  We  think  that  we  could  have 
hastened  Christ’s  movements,  especially  in  the  physi¬ 
cal  department  of  his  service.  Why  not  speak  one 
healing  word  for  all,  so  that  throughout  the  land 
every  sick-bed  might  have  been  vacated  at  the  same 
hour?  What  a  magnificent  introduction  to  spiritual 
labor  this  would  have  been  !  How  quickly  he  could 
thus  have  come  to  his  main  point  —  the  revelafion  of 
God  !  Yet  he  lingers  over  individual  cases  with  a 
calmness  which  baffles  us,  considering  how  much 


CHRIST  ADJUSTING  HUMAN  RELATIONS.  1 7 1 

work  lies  before  him.  But  is  it  not  the  same  with 
him  whom  we  know  as  Creator?  Does  he  not  daily- 
most  vexatiously  in  physical  processes?  How  long  a 
time  he  takes  to  mould  an  ear  of  corn  !  And  what  a 
waste  of  power  it  appears,  that  the  earth  should  bring 
forth  but  one  harvest  in  the  year !  In  his  physical 
service  Christ  was  strikingly  like  what  we  know  of 
the  Creator.  The  meaning  of  this  slowness  may 
come  to  us  in  the  higher  spheres.  In  the  mean  time, 
impatience  is  an  infallible  sign  of  weakness. 

On  the  matter  of  setting  man  in  a  right  relation  to 
God  something  further  will  be  said  in  another  chap¬ 
ter  :  it  is  introduced  here  as  completing  the  statement 
that  Christ  undertook  the  adjustment  of  human  rela¬ 
tions  ;  and  while  it  is  thus  before  us  it  may  be  well 
to  repeat  that  there  is  nothing  revolting  in  Christ’s 
representation  of  God,  but  everything  that  is  pleasing 
and  satisfying  to  the  tenderest  instincts  of  human 
nature.  God  is  the  Spirit ;  God  is  the  Father  ;  God 
is  revealed  by  the  Son,  and  there  is  no  way  but 
through  the  Son  to  the  Father;  God  loved  the  world, 
and  proved  his  love  by  the  gift  of  his  Son.  This  is 
Christ’s  theology.  In  Christ’s  God  there  is  nothing 
to  terrify  the  heart  that  yearns  for  him.  He  has  no 
thirst  for  revenge,  no  bloody  decree  to  execute.  He 
is  so  tender  that  a  heart-wish  will  move  him ;  so 
generous,  that  he  will  withhold  nothing  from  them 
that  are  reconciled  to  him.  His  anger  with  the 
wicked  is  only  the  recoil  of  his  love  of  the  good. 
This  being  so,  Christ  says  —  Come  to  him;  be  as  he 
is ;  you  misunderstand  him  if  you  think  evil  of  him ; 


172  ECCE  DEUS. 

I  know  him  better  than  any  other  being  can  ever 
know  him,  and  I  declare  unto  you  that  his  power 
and  wisdom  are  equalled  by  his  love,  A  great 
speech  to  make  to  the  human  world !  How  sincere 
it  was  we  may  see  when  we  come  to  study  the  Cross 
of  Christ. 


1 


*73 


CHAPTER  XII. 


CHRIST  THE  CONTEMPORARY  OF  ALL  AGES. 


AS  the  civilization  of  the  nineteenth  century 


rendered  Christianity  obsolete,  or  has  Jesus 
Christ  made  any  provision  for  the  development  of 
humanity?  Was  Christ’s  merely  a  day’s  work  done 
in  the  usual  order  of  things,  or  had  he  a  reach  over 
the  ages,  controlling  and  moulding  them  to  the  very 
end  of  the  world?  Is  the  New  Testament  to  be 
shelved  with  u  The  Republic  ”  or  “  The  Nicomachean 
Ethics ;  ”  or  is  it  the  life  of  the  world  that  now  is, 
with  its  ever-varying  phases  and  attitudes,  its  storms 
of  war,  and  its  revolutions  of  thought?  We  may  be 
able  to  gather  an  answer  from  Christ’s  own  words. 

Christ  repeatedly  spoke  of  his  own  “  hereafter,”  and 
of  the  “  hereafter  ”  of  the  church.  His  criticisms  and 
instructions  were  by  no  means  confined  to  the  past 
and  the  present ;  they  were  full  of  anticipation,  over¬ 
flowing  the  hour  in  which  they  were  spoken  and 
making  for  themselves  a  channel  through  all  time. 
There  were  terms  in  his  speech  which  denoted  great 
purposes  as  to  time,  persons,  and  moral  victories, — 
such  as  “  unto  the  end  of  the  world,”  “  forever,” 
“  every  creature,”  “  all  nations,”  “  east,  west,  north, 
and  south.”  It  seems  to  be  necessary,  therefore,  to 
preserve  the  logical  consistency  of  Christ’s  method, 


*74 


ECCE  DEUS. 


that  as  it  was  “expedient”  for  the  disciples  that  he 
should  u  go  away,”  that  some  provision  should  be 
made  for  the  expected  development  of  human  nature 
and  the  requirements  of  the  attendant  expansion  and 
refinement  of  general  civilization.  The  world  would 
certainly  become  larger,  could  Christ  occupy  the 
extended  space?  The  harvest  would  be  great,  was 
there  root-room  enough  in  Christ’s  heart?  Christ 
entirely  reversed  what  we  should  have  considered 
the  proper  order  of  things,  and  thus  gave  another 
check  to  anything  like  presumptuous  criticism  of  his 
method  of  redeeming  and  educating  the  world.  The 
common  plan  would  probably  have  assumed  some 
such  shape  as  this  —  Christ  must  abide  personally 
among  men  until  the  redemptive  purpose  be  fully 
accomplished,  not  only  on  his  part,  but  also  on  the 
part  of  the  world  ;  it  will  be  best  for  him  to  make 
short  work,  and  to  break  up  the  present  economy  as 
soon  as  he  has  made  clear  what  is  meant  by  his  having 
been  given  to  save  men  ;  or,  if  he  continue  the  present 
rude  structure  of  society,  his  disciples  will  necessarily 
have  many  questions  to  ask  and  many  difficulties  to 
overcome,  and  he  must  be  continually  at  hand,  so  that 
the  reference  may  be  instant  and  decisive :  when  the 
last  man  is  safe  in  heaven,  and  every  possible  spoil 
has  been  recovered  from  the  enemy,  then  let  Christ 
himself  abandon  the  earth,  and  take  the  headship  of 
the  glorified  church.  Instead  of  this,  which  looks  so 
feasible  and  tempting  on  paper,  Christ  was  actually  the 
first  to  leave  the  scene  of  trial,  and  his  disciples  were 
consequently  deprived  of  the  inspiration  and  comfort 
of  a  visible  Christ.  The  poor,  simple  men  had  been 


CHRIST  THE  CONTEMPORARY  OF  ALL  AGES.  1 75 

called  to  a  most  trying  prominence,  and  the  man  who 
called  them  took  the  earliest  opportunity  of  leaving 
•them  alone  in  the  world  !  Under  such  circumstances, 
how  could  the  future  be  other  than  gloomy  and  por¬ 
tentous?  The  disciples  were  committed  to  an  idea; 
they  bore  a  name  which  had  a  bad  repute  among  all 
the  ecclesiastical  leaders  and  persons  of  social  conse¬ 
quence  ;  they  were  to  carry  the  cross  as  their  charac¬ 
teristic  badge,  and  to  be  hated  of  all  men  for  their 
Master’s  sake  ;  as  sheep  among  wolves,  they  were  to 
make  their  perilous  way.  Knowing  all  this,  Christ 
left  them.  Would  he  abandon  a  half-built  tower? 
Did  he  leave  because  his  resources  were  exhausted, 
or  because  he  could  better  move  the  ages  from  the 
altitude  of  the  heavens? 

We  may  pause  a  moment  to  say,  that  men  can  be 
trained  to  strength  only  by  being  thrown  on  their  own 
resources  in  certain  determining  crises.  The  parent 
acts  upon  this  doctrine  when  he  sends  his  son  to  a 
distant  school,  that  he  may  be  thrown  into  contact 
with  rivals  and  strengthened  by  daily  contest  with 
eager  competitors.  There  is  an  educational  element 
in  opposition,  in  suffering,  and  in  provocation,  and  it 
is  for  very  love  of  his  child  that  the  parent  withdraws 
the  comforts  of  home  and  places  him  in  circumstances 
which  will  test  his  nerve  and  rouse  his  soul.  The  lad 
carries  with  him  all  the  mingled  comfort  and  pain  of 
home  associations,  upon  which  his  heart  will  draw 
when  the  stress  of  events  is  heavy  upon  him  ;  in  their 
veiy  absence  his  parents  will  be  present  to  him  with 
intenser  reality  than  ever,  and  the  hiding  of  their  face 
will  bring  with  it  a  deeper  disclosure  of  their  heart, 


ECCE  DEUS. 


1 76 

In  some  such  way,  only  with  infinite  expansions  of 
meaning,  shall  we  come  to  know  what  was  meant  by 
that  blank  dismay  which  the  disciples  must  have  felt 
when  their  Master  said  he  intended  to  leave  them. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  in  all  Christ’s  teaching  there 
are  manifold  references  to  the  future.  Many  a  state¬ 
ment  was  like  a  sealed  letter,  not  to  be  broken  but  by 
time.  The  life  which  Christ  sketched  was  often  an 
ideal  life  —  beginning  in  a  grain  of  mustard-seed,  end¬ 
ing  in  a  great  tree.  Again  and  again  he  hints  at  what 
shall  be,  and  from  the  dim  u  hereafter”  draws  motives 
for  immediate  direction.  Does  not  the  parent  help 
his  child  over  to-day  by  talking  of  to-morrow?  It  is 
not  upon  a  near  future  that  Christ  dwells,  but  upon 
the  most  distant  ranges  of  terrestrial  experience,  as 
a  father  often  tells  his  son  what  he  shall  have  when 
he  is  a  man.  With  much  detail  Christ  outlined  the 
final  assize  which  he  would  hold  upon  “  all  nations,” 
and  from  the  very  evening  of  the  world  drew  consid¬ 
erations  for  the  government  of  its  morning  hours.  He 
thus  established  a  practical  relation  between  the  events 
of  all  time,  uniting  human  history  by  stretching  the 
cable  of  a  common  Judgment  from  shore  to  shore. 
This  was  enough,  meanwhile.  He  could  not,  consid¬ 
ering  the  moral  infancy  of  the  disciples,  describe  every 
line  of  latitude  and  longitude,  though  each  was  pres¬ 
ent  to  his  own  mind,  but  he  fixed  their  eye  upon  a 
distant  and  most  conspicuous  object,  nothing  less  than 
himself  enthroned  in  his  glory  and  encircled  by  his 
angels,  and  bade  them  strike  their  course  over  the 
unknown  but  not  ungoverned  waters,  so  that  they 
might  eventually  reach  it.  The  men  who  had  been 


CHRIST  THE  CONTEMPORARY  OF  ATT.  AGES.  1 77 

*5 

with  Christ  three  years,  and  heard  from  his  own  lips 
a  description  of  the  Judgment  day,  could  not  go  far 
wrong  in  any  question  that  might  arise  in  their  expe¬ 
rience.  The  spirit  of  philanthropy  was  to  be  the 
spirit  of  judgment.  It  is  very  remarkable  that  Christ 
should  have  enabled  men  to  bring  the  remotest  fact 
of  time  to  bear  upon  the  concerns  of  the  passing 
moment.  We  can  now  make  every  day  a  day  of 
Judgment ;  we  know  the  questions  which  will  come 
up ;  we  know  the  standard  of  appeal ;  we  can  antici¬ 
pate  our  individual  colloquy  with  the  Judge  ;  we  can 
hear  his  voice ;  we  can  “  go  away  into  everlasting 
punishment, ”  or  into  life  eternal.  This  was  a  most 
practical  provision  which  Christ  made  for  the  devel¬ 
opment  of  humanity:  by  giving  us  a  Judgment  day, 
he  enabled  us  to  try  our  deeds  by  the  very  fire  of  the 
final  conflagration.  All  nations  were  to  come  to  the 
same  judgment,  and  all  were  to  be  tried  by  one  Spirit. 
It  is  then,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  remarkable,  consider¬ 
ing  how  many  questions  Christ  left  unanswered,  that 
he  should  have  set  before  men  the  transactions  of  the 
final  hour  of  human  history.  This  he  would  not  have 
done  had  he  not  contemplated  an  educational  effect. 

As  yet,  however,  we  have  but  two  points,  the  very 
beginning  and  the  very  end  —  Christ’s  personal  min¬ 
istry  and  Christ’s  personal  judgment :  is  there  nothing 
between?  Probably  the  strongest  men  might  be  able 
to  traverse  the  distance  between  those  points,  but  the 
strongest  men  are  few  in  number ;  what  is  to  become 
of  the  hosts  who  are  to  be  watched  and  kept  like  chil*- 
dren  ? —  men  of  unsteady  purpose,  and  perverted  faculty 
of  self-judgment?  Christ  foresaw  the  difficulty,  and 
8* 


T  7S 


jitl’E  DEUS. 


provided  for  it.  He  bad  given  a  personal  ministry 
and  sketched  the  great  judgment ;  but  how  could  he 
cover  the  whole  line  of  human  history  between?  This 
inquiry  he  answered  in  a  sentence :  “  When  he,  the 
Spirit  of  Truth,  is  come,  whom  I  will  send  unto  you 
from  the  Father,  he  will  guide  you  into  all  truth.” 
It  may  be  convenient  to  say  in  detail  what  that  Spirit 
is,  so  far  as  we  can  gather  from  the  Christian  writings  : 
he  is  then  (1)  the  Spirit  of  truth;  (2)  the  Spirit  of 
comfort ;  (3)  the  Spirit  of  liberty ;  (4)  the  Spirit  of 
love  ;  (5)  the  Spirit  of  holiness,  because  the  Spirit  of 
God.  Now,  assuming  that  these  statements  are  true, 
it  is  easy  to  see  how  Christ  has  provided  for  the  mul¬ 
tiplying  wants  of  an  expanding  civilization.  This 
Spirit  fills,  overflows  man’s  capacity,  and  meets,  with 
all  God-like  exuberance,  every  possible  necessity  of 
human  nature.  So  to  speak,  he  surrounds  man  as 
well  as  dwells  in  him,  and  according  to  the  outward 
circumstance  as  well  as  the  inward  condition  his  min¬ 
istry  is  regulated.  Thus  in  the  order  of  revelation  we 
have  had  first  that  which  is  natural,  afterwards  that 
which  is  spiritual ;  first  the  sacred  letter,  then  the 
Holy  Spirit.  The  ancient  church  was  fed  with  the 
milk  of  the  Word,  the  modern  church  needs  strong 
meat:  “strong  meat  belongeth  to  them  that  are  full 
of  age,  even  those  who  by  reason  of  use  have  their 
senses  exercised  to  discern  good  and  evil.”  Instead 
of  burdening  the  memory  with  technicalities,  Christ 
provided  for  the  quickening  of  the  moral  faculty  in 
man,  and  thus,  in  spiritual  things,  acted  in  relation 
to  the  human  soul  as  in  temporal  things  God  had 
done.  God  gives  man  power  to  get  products  out  of 


CHRIST  TIIE  CONTEMPORARY  OF  ALL  AGES.  1 79 

the  soil ;  but  instead  of  saying  this  must  be  eaten 
and  that  must  be  refused,  he  gives  the  power,  call  it 
instinct  or  reason,  which  saves  him  who  rightly  uses 
it  from  noxious  plants  and  animals.  It  was  better  to 
give  the  faculty  of  discrimination  than  to  label  all  the 
products  of  the  earth.  A  spirit  is  better  than  a  cata¬ 
logue.  There  are  few  things  in  the  lower  range  of 
life  more  remarkable  than  man’s  instinct  by  which  he 
discovers  what  to  eat.  Every  day  he  is  called  upon 
to  choose,  even  so  far  as  the  body  is  concerned, 
between  life  and  death.  The  life  of  the  body  is 
exposed  to  constant  risk.  In  nearly  every  field  there 
are  roots  or  leaves  which  might  injure  or  even  destroy 
the  health  of  the  body ;  yet  man  continues  to  make 
a  selection  adapted  to  his  nature.  These  poisonous 
roots  are  like  so  many  temptations  ;  they  are  to  the 
body  what  vices  are  to  the  soul ;  yet  speaking  gen¬ 
erally —  for  the  exceptions  only  prove  the  rule —  man 
is  superior  to  them,  he  refuses  if  not  resists,  and  saves 
himself.  How  is  this?  Is  there  not  a  spirit  in  man, 
and  doth  not  the  inspiration  of  the  Almighty  give 
him  understanding?  “This  also  cometh  forth  from 
the  Lord  of  Hosts,  which  is  wonderful  in  counsel  and 
excellent  in  working.”  It  may  be  asked,  How  has 
God  provided  for  material  civilization?  and  the  an¬ 
swer  is,  By  the  spirit  that  is  in  man  ;  so  it  may  be 
asked,  How  has  Christ  provided  for  intellectual  expan¬ 
sion,  and  the  corresponding  claims  which  the  intellect 
would  present?  and  the  answer  is  substantially  the 
same.  When  Christ  opened  the  eyes  of  the  blind,  he 
did  not  require  to  create  another  universe  that  the 
vision  might  have  an  object  to  rest  upon  ;  the  universe 


ECCE  DEUS. 


1S0 

was  there,  waiting  to  be  looked  at.  So  the  universe 
of  truth  has  existed  from  the  beginning,  and  as  there 
are  steep  hills,  perilous  precipices,  intricate  winding 
ways,  and  not  a  few  tangled  forest-paths,  he  has  prom¬ 
ised  the  Spirit  to  guide  men  into  all  truth  ;  emphati¬ 
cally  to  guide  men,  the  very  word  implying  difficulty, 
danger,  and  constantly  new  evolutions  and  combina¬ 
tions  ;  not  only  to  guide,  but  to  guide  into  all  truth  ; 
not  into  some  departments,  but  into  all ;  not  into  ex¬ 
ternal  views  of  truth,  but  into  its  very  essence,  so  that 
men  might  know  truth  under  every  disguise,  and  be 
able  to  eliminate  it  from  every  sophism  and  every 
heresy.  We  know  what  it  is  to  be  so  far  in  sympathy 
with  the  spirit  of  a  companion  as  to  be  able  to  pro¬ 
nounce  an  opinion  about  any  of  his  reputed  actions ; 
instantly  we  say  such  a  charge  or  statement  is  true  or 
false  ;  so  entire  is  our  mutual  accord,  that  judgment 
of  him  is  like  judgment  of  our  own  heart.  Our  com¬ 
panion,  if  of  a  strong  character,  has  put  his  spirit 
into  us,  and  instinctively  we  have  come  to  know 
whether  any  report  of  him  is  likely  to  be  true  or 
untrue  ;  we  know  so  well  his  magnanimity  that  we 
resent  the  imputation  of  any  ignoble  deed  which 
rumor  may  connect  with  his  name,  or  accept  with 
thankfulness  any  report  which  details  his  excellences 
—  in  this  case  our  spirit  witnesses  with  the  spirit  of 
the  report  that  it  is  true.  In  a  modified  degree  this 
represents  the  relation  of  Christians  to  Christ ;  that 
relation  is  so  intimate,  so  vital  indeed,  nothing  less 
than  consubstantiality  having  been  effected  by  eating 
his  flesh  and  drinking  his  blood,  that  they  can  unhesi¬ 
tatingly  determine  the  truth  or  untruth  of  any  propo- 


CHRIST  THE  CONTEMPORARY  OF  ALL  AGES.  l8l 

sition  concerning  him,  and  infallibly  distinguish  be¬ 
tween  a  legitimate  expansion  of  his  doctrines  and  a 
distortion  of  them. 

T  xe  intercommunion  between  the  spirit  of  man  and 
the  Spirit  of  God,  an  intercommunion  re-established 
and  enlarged  by  Christ,  is  the  guarantee  of  purity  and 
progress  on  the  part  of  the  church.  By  Christ’s  min¬ 
istry  we  are  now  elevated  to  the  highest  plane,  and 
the  words  of  John  have  a  deep  meaning  :  “  The  anoint¬ 
ing  which  ye  have  received  of  him  abideth  in  you, 
and  ye  need  not  that  any  man  teach  you.”  The  teach¬ 
ing  of  the  church  does  not  now  come  from  the  outside  ; 
Christians  have  in  them  a  well  of  water  springing  up 
into  eternal  life.  They  judge  the  preacher  and  the 
author  by  the  anointing  which  they  have  received  of 
the  Holy  One,  and  by  their  own  spirit  are  able  to  try 
all  other  spirits,  whether  they  are  of  God.  The  wit¬ 
ness  of  the  Spirit  changes  the  aspect  and  meaning  of 
all  outward  things.  The  Christian  writings  them¬ 
selves  are  valuable  in  proportion  as  the  spirit  of  the 
reader  is  enlightened  by  the  Spirit  that  dictated  them. 
The  dead  man  is  heedless  of  the  sumptuous  banquet : 
the  dead  soul  is  as  heedless  of  the  richer  banquet  of 
revelation.  There  must  be  two  witnessing  spirits. 
The  sun  is  nothing  to  the  blind  man  :  give  him  vision, 
and  the  sun  becomes  his  day.  Christ  thus  provides 
for  details  by  providing  for  universals.  He  gives  life, 
and  he  gives  the  Holy  Ghost  to  guide  life  ;  and  in  these 
two,  yet  indivisible  gifts,  all  things  necessary  for  human 
cultivation  are  included.  The  world  had  no  adequate 
notion  of  life  until  Christ  came  ;  in  fact,  so  vast  is  the 
volume  of  life  which  he  offers,  that  it  may  be  almost 


ECCE  DEUS. 


lS2 

literally  said  that  Christ  brought  life  and  immortality 
to  light ,  as  things  not  known  before  ;  not  only  life  and 
immortality  as  future  blessings,  but  as  present  and 
immediately  available  realities. 

The  speculative  life  of  the  church  is  marked  by  an 
immense  variety  of  results.  Hardly  any  two  thinkers 
have  adopted  precisely  the  same  conclusions.  How  is 
this  to  be  accounted  for,  if  they  have  been  illuminated 
and  directed  by  the  same  Spirit?  Easily  and  satis¬ 
factorily.  Life  is  not  to  be  judged  by  formal  logic. 
Ask  two  travellers  who  have  completed  the  same 
journey  to  describe  the  course  they  have  taken,  with 
all  the  incidents.  They  have  traversed  the  same  road, 
on  the  same  day,  under  the  same  conditions,  yet  the 
statement  of  the  one  is  meagre,  the  statement  of  the 
other  minute.  How  so?  They  walked  under  the  same 
light,  and  the  great  volume  of  the  landscape  lay  open 
before  them.  The  difference  is  in  the  mental  habitudes 
of  the  observers.  The  eye  of  the  one  was  trained  ;  the 
eye  of  the  other  was  uneducated.  The  same  thing  is  - 
illustrated  in  the  reading  of  a  book :  one  reader  is  in¬ 
structed,  another  disappointed.  And  this  diversity, 
when  the  spirit  of  censoriousness  is  excluded,  is  fruit¬ 
ful  of  good.  It  provokes  to  deeper  and  more  con¬ 
tinuous  investigation  ;  it  saves  the  intellectual  world 
from  monotony,  stagnation,  and  death  ;  it  creates  a  gen¬ 
erous  interest  in  the  gifts  of  fellow-inquirers.  There 
is  even  a  higher  benefit :  it  shows  that  no  one  man  has 
all  the  truth  ;  it  breaks  up  monopoly,  it  destroys  infal¬ 
libility.  There  is  a  truth  on  every  side  of  polemic 
theology ;  and  just  as  men  of  every  clime  and  race 
are  necessary  to  make  up  the  entire  of  God’s  idea  of 


CHRIST  THE  CONTEMPORARY  OF  ALL  AGES.  1 83 

humanity,  so  every  degree  of  truth,  and  every  aspect 
of  truth,  must  be  brought  together,  if  we  would  see 
the  totality  of  God’s  doctrine.  One  nation  has  caught 
its  poetry,  another  its  logic  ;  one  has  condensed  it  into 
maxims,  another  has  elaborated  it  into  most  complex 
philosophies  ;  no  two  of  them  are  agreed  as  to  nomen¬ 
clature  ;  still  the  doctrine,  like  its  author,  is  One,  though 
now  it  is  as  steady  as  a  star,  and  anon  it  heaves  like  the 
billows  of  the  sea. 

But  these  are  speculative  differences  merely ;  it  still 
remains  to  inquire  how  moral  aberrations  are  to  be 
accounted  for.  The  answer  is,  that  they  are  to  be  ac¬ 
counted  for  on  moral  grounds.  Paul  admonishes  men 
not  to  grieve  the  Spirit,  and  not  to  quench  the  Spirit. 
The  Spirit  is  a  u  guide,”  not  a  tyrant.  The  Spirit 
remains  with  any  man  only  so  long  as  that  man  is  a 
consenting  party.  The  Spirit  may  have  taught  the 
right  way,  yet  the  heart  may  have  rejected  the  teach-* 
ing.  u  Video  meliora  proboque,  deteriora  sequor.” 
Christ  said  to  the  Pharisees,  u  If  ye  were  blind,  ye 
should  have  no  sin :  but  now  ye  say,  We  see ;  there¬ 
fore  your  sin  remaineth.”  The  same  principle  is 
asserted  by  an  apostle  who  lays  down  the  doctrine : 
“  To  him  that  knoweth  to  do  good,  and  doeth  it  not, 
to  him  it  is  sin.”  So  long  as  man  is  man,  he  must 
have  the  power  of  resisting  God  ;  and  so  long  as  God  is 
God,  he  must  wait  until  the  heart-door  be  opened  from 
the  inside.  Omnipotence  itself  cannot  force  hearts. 

By  laying  down  a  few  universal  principles,  sketch¬ 
ing  a  kind  of  river-map,  and  giving  the  Spirit  of 
Truth  to  be  a  constant  indwelling  gue^t  of  the  soul, 
Christ  is  as  truly,  as  potentially,  present  with  this  age 


184 


ECCE  DEUS. 


as  he  was  with  his  immediate  followers  in  Judaea. 
This,  indeed,  is  not  the  whole  of  the  fact.  Of  every 
great  man  it  may  be  justly  said  that  he  is  more  in¬ 
fluentially  present  after  his  death  than  during  his  life. 
Shakspeare  exerts  a  wider  influence  to-day  than  in 
the  days  of  his  flesh  ;  so  does  Milton  ;  so  does  Luther ; 
but  not  so  Hannibal,  or  Caesar  in  his  military  aspect, 
for  destroyers  must  decrease,  but  creators  must  in¬ 
crease.  Men’s  names  are  kept  up  with  men’s  say¬ 
ings.  It  is  remarkable,  as  an  eminent  observer  of 
human  nature  has  said,  that  the  question  is  not 
only  what  is  said,  but  who  said  it?  So  that  the  say¬ 
ing  is  associated  with  the  person  ;  and  if  the  saying 
be  strong  enough  to  keep  pace  with  the  march  of  the 
generations,  its  author  may  be  said  to  be  with  men 
u  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.”  What  is  true  in 
degree  of  thinkers  is  true,  in  an  absolute  sense,  of  the 
man  in  whom  dwelt  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead 
bodily.  Notwithstanding  the  fierce  iconoclasm  of  the 
age,  a  hard  statement  bearing  the  name  of  Milton  will 
secure  a  more  respectful  hearing  than  if  it  were  pro¬ 
nounced  anonymously.  This  is  right.  In  the  heat 
and  prejudice  of  controverted  times  it  is  well  to  with¬ 
hold  the  name,  but  whoever  speaks  a  word  that  goes 
to  the  world’s  heart  will  quicken  an  eager  desire  on 
the  part  of  those  whom  he  has  benefited  to  have  his 
personality  identified.  Christ  will  never  be  dissociated 
from  Christ’s  sayings,  and  in  this  way  he  will  be  with 
his  people  unto  the  end  of  the  world,  but  in  a  still 
deeper  way  —  deeper  because  the  words  will  receive 
continually  broadening  interpretations  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  be  more  urgently  and  powerfully  applied 


CHRIST  THE  CONTEMPORARY  OF  ALL  AGES.  1 85 

to  human  experience.  The  first  reading  cannot  bring 
out  all  the  meaning  of  the  words.  It  flows  like  the 
oil  which  the  prophet  blessed.  The  few  words  of 
Christ  have  expanded  into  libraries  ;  the  poet  has  sung 
them,  the  painter  has  painted  them  ;  and  to-day  un¬ 
numbered  thousands  are  eating  the  bread  which  is  dis¬ 
tributed  by  his  hand.  Seminally,  at  least,  everything 
in  morals  can  be  found  in  Christ.  No  man  has  spoken 
truths  so  deep,  so  far-reaching,  and  with  this  remarka¬ 
ble  circumstance  in  addition  —  he  was  the  first  speaker 
upon  the  themes  which  he  discussed,  he  borrowed 
nothing,  he  created  all.  He  outlined  the  most  com¬ 
prehensive  theories  ;  sketched  plots  which  poets  might 
work  out ;  gave  rebukes  which  showed  the  distance 
which  lay  between  him  and  all  hypocrites,  oppressors, 
and  self-seekers ;  and  uttered  promises  which  have 
sunk  into  the  sorrowing  hearts  of  all  subsequent  gen¬ 
erations.  He  is  thus,  and  not  thus  only,  with  men 
unto  the  end  of  the  world. 

Christ  said  that  he  came  to  give  men  life,  and  to 
give  it  “  more  abundantly.”  In  this  latter  expression 
he  hinted  his  relation  to  the  great  question  of  human 
development  —  showed  that  man  would  never  outgrow 
him,  and,  in  fact,  that  there  was  no  growth  apart 
from  his  own  vitalizing  energy.  A  generous  sophism 
lurks  in  the  supposition  that  one  man  is  as  good  as 
another,  01  even  that  one  man  is  as  much  a  man  as 
another.  Manhood  varies  —  varies  in  volump  and 
purity.  Man  grows  from  his  original  condition  —  by 
imperceptible  increments,  indeed  —  yet  still  he  grows, 
if  the  true  life  be  in  him,  so  that  two  becomes  four, 
and  five  ten  ;  and  as  certainly  as  he  grows  he  becomes 


ECCE  DEUS. 


1 86 

liberated  from  the  obscurity  and  humiliation  which 
marked  his  starting-point.  Human  nature  is,  of 
course,  primordially  the  same,  but  its  possible  degrees 
of  development  are  infinite  ;  and  it  cannot  but  be  a 
fact  of  immense  importance  in  this  argument,  that  in 
those  countries  where  most  about  Christ  is  known, 
every  science  and  every  art  is  most  liberally  patronized. 
The  light  which  Christ  sheds  upon  the  world  has 
never  been  proved  to  be  unfavorable  to  the  highest 
intellectual  cultivation,  but  has  been  proved  —  and,  in 
fact,  is  being  proved  every  day  —  to  be  in  the  highest 
degree  favorable  to  all  that  can  be  legitimately  classi¬ 
fied  under  the  term  progress.  As  a  simple  matter  of 
fact,  Christ  is  to-day  increasing  the  life  of  the  world. 
Take  a  common  case :  An  English  Arab  is  taken  off 
the  streets  by  a  Christian  philanthropist,  and  placed 
under  religious  instructi  >n  ;  he  is  taught,  for  the  time, 
something  of  his  nature  and  something  of  his  destiny  ; 
according  to  his  capacity  the  instruction  is  continued 
to  him  ;  by  and  by  he  comes  to  feel  that  in  some  little 
degree  he  is  human,  that  he  has  wonderful  powers, 
that  he  may  be  good  and  do  good :  so  far  the  philan¬ 
thropist  has  given  him  “  life  ;  ”  —  still  the  culture  pro¬ 
ceeds,  ideas  take  a  wider  range ;  the  philanthropist 
conducts  him  from  point  to  point  in  the  circumference 
of  knowledge,  hoping  to  find  the  point  most  adapted 
to  the  youth’s  capability.  At  length  it  is  found,  and 
the  quondam  Arab  becomes  an  explorer,  or  scientific 
student,  or  a  man  of  letters,  and  so  has  not  only 
“life,”  but  “life  more  abundantly,” — precisely  as 
Christ  promised.  Who  called  him  from  the  dead, 
and  made  him  a  revealer  of  life  to  others?  Can  the 


CHRIST  THE  CONTEMPORARY  OF  ALL  AGES.  iS^ 

scantest  justice  hesitate  as  to  an  answer?  There  are, 
however,  we  may  probably  be  reminded,  many  men 
illustrious  in  science  who  are  not,  in  the  generally  ac¬ 
cepted  sense  of  the  term,  or  perhaps  in  any  sense  of 
the  term,  “  followers  of  Christ ;  ”  —  in  what  relations 
do  they  stand  to  the  Life-giver?  They  may  come 
under  Christ’s  own  classification,  u  They  that  are  not 
against  us  are  for  us.”  But  what  if  they  are  u  against” 
Christ?  Then  they  certainly  should  not  require  to  be 
reminded  that  the  whole  atmosphere  is,  so  to  speak, 
Christian.  All  the  forces  of  modern  civilization  have 
taken  effect  under  decidedly  Christianized  conditions, 
and  the  more  truly  scientific  mind  will  be  the  last  to 
doubt  the  remote,  subtle,  and  most  penetrating  in¬ 
fluence  of  what  may  be  termed  moral  climate.  The 
whole  air  in  which  the  intellect  moves  is  charged  with 
Christian  elements ;  and  no  scientific  man  would  be 
speaking  secundum  artem  if  he  denied,  at  least,  their 
probable  influence  on  the  whole  current  of  opinion 
and  practice.  There  may  be  a  difficulty,  in  some 
minds,  in  tracing  the  connection  between  Christian 
thought  and  purely  scientific  pursuit ;  even  Aristotle 
confesses  that  it  is  “  difficult  to  say  how  a  weaver  or 
carpenter  would  be  benefited,  with  reference  to  his 
own  art,  by  knowing  the  self-good  ;  ”  yet  reflection 
may  be  able  to  trace  even  this  apparently  remote  re¬ 
lationship.  Whatever  liberates  the  mind  from  low 
and  self-seeking  purposes,  or  brings  it  into  more  in¬ 
tensely  conscious  contact  with  the  absolute,  gives  the 
whole  man  a  wider  and  firmer  mastery  over  all  that  is 
below  and  around  him.  The  idea  is  illustrated  par¬ 
tially  by  the  admitted  effect  of  high  classical  culture 


ECCE  DEUS. 


1 88 

upon  the  discussion  of  general  questions  of  political 
and  literary  life.  The  man  who  has  been  thoroughly 
drilled  in  ancient  literature  will,  other  things  being 
equal,  be  better  able  to  discuss  subjects  of  common  in¬ 
terest,  to  trace  their  bearings  and  forecast  their  conse¬ 
quences,  than  the  unlettered  man  ;  not  that  there  may 
be  any  very  patent  connection  between  philology  and 
politics,  but  because  of  the  severe  intellectual  disci¬ 
pline  and  consequent  self-mastery  which  such  drill 
necessitates.  Even  allowing  that  Aristotle  is  right  in 
suggesting  the  difficulty  of  seeing  how  a  weaver  or 
carpenter  could  be  benefited  in  his  own  art  by  know¬ 
ing  the  “  self-good,”  it  is  obvious  that  the  more  any 
man  knows  of  any  great  subject,  the  less  likelihood  is 
there  of  his  continuing  in  the  position  of  a  weaver  or 
carpenter.  Intellectual  vitality  signifies  social  eleva¬ 
tion  ;  and  though  some  may  be  disposed  to  raise  the 
grave  question,  “  How  could  society  dispense  with  its 
weavers  or  carpenters?”  yet  our  business  relates  pri¬ 
marily  to  the  higher  considerations,  forasmuch  as  the 
man  is  of  more  importance  than  the  weaver .  When 
manhood  rises,  the  industrial  arts  will  feel  the  effect 
of  the  elevation. 

The  inquiry  is,  “  How  did  Christ  propose  to  make 
himself  not  only  the  contemporary,  but  the  king  of  all 
ages?”  To  this  inquiry  our  answer  has  been,  (i)  By 
a  personal  ministry;  (2)  By  a  fully  delineated  Judg¬ 
ment  ;  and  (3)  By  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  of  Truth, 
whose  peculiar  function  it  is  to  take  of  the  things  of 
Christ,  and  show  them  unto  the  church.  It  has  been 
admitted  by  the  latest  writer  on  the  life  of  Christ,  that 
Christ  could,  even  after  his  personal  withdrawment, 


CHRIST  THE  CONTEMPORARY  OF  ALL  AGES.  189 

visit  his  people  “  in  refreshing  inspirations  and  great 
acts  of  providential  justice ;  ”  this  admission  really 
covers  the  whole  question  of  Christ’s  contempora¬ 
neousness  with  all  ages,  for  if  he  can  visit  his  people 
at  all  in  “  refreshing  inspirations  and  great  acts  of 
providential  justice,”  he  is  necessarily  (if  faithful  to 
himself)  the  chief  factor  in  human  development  on  the 
Christian  side. 


190 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

THESE  SAYINGS  OF  MINE. 

4 

CHRIST  was  pre-eminently  a  talker.  u  Never  man 
spake  like  this  man,”  was  the  testimony  of  his 
enemies.  After  reading  the  doctrines  of  Plato,  Soc¬ 
rates,  or  Aristotle,  we  feel  that  the  specific  difference 
between  their  words  and  Christ’s  is  the  difference  be¬ 
tween  an  Inquiry  and  a  Revelation.  We  feel  as  if  at 
any  moment  they  might  push  a  speculation  too  far,  or 
suddenly  turn  off'  at  a  wrong  angle  —  as  if  they  were 
groping  their  way  along  dim  and  perilous  paths, 
throwing  gossamers  over  the  dark  rivers,  and  tempt¬ 
ing  men  to  walk  over  the  unsubstantial  bridge  ;  again 
and  again  they  run  the  risk  of  exalting  a  riddle  into  a 
problem,  or  settling  a  definition  into  a  law.  With 
this  the  method  of  Jesus  Christ  most  strikingly  con¬ 
trasts.  There  is,  account  for  it  as  men  please,  an 
authority  in  every  tone  ;  his  language  is  clear,  and  if 
short,  it  is  final ;  it  never  betrays  the  faintest  sign  of 
hesitancy  on  the  part  of  the  speaker ;  if  it  were  an 
immediate  revelation  from  Heaven,  there  could  not  be 
a  sharper  outline  or  a  firmer  emphasis.  Thus  much 
may  be  said  simply  as  a  matter  of  criticism,  without 
any  prejudgment  of  the  doctrine.  It  has  been  sug¬ 
gested  that  he  spoke  with  “  the  authoritative  tone  and 
earnestness  of  a  Jew,”  but  this  suggestion,  if  meant  for 


THESE  SAYINGS  OF  MINE. 


1  91 


an  explanation,  is  pointless  :  Christ  was  not  the  only 
Jew  who  had  spoken  ;  and  if  “  authoritativeness  of 
tone”  be  characteristic  of  Jewish  teaching,  it  should 
be  borne  in  mind  that  Christ  was  openly  and  repeat¬ 
edly  contradicted  by  men  who  spoke  with  “  the  au¬ 
thoritative  tone  and  earnestness  of  a  Jew,”  —  by  the 
doctors  of  the  law,  by  the  teachers  and  leaders  of  the 
people,  by  men  who  held  the  historic  parchments  of 
the  land  ;  so  that  in  all  fairness  u  tone  ”  should  be  set 
against  u  tone,”  and  it  should  then  be  explained  how 
the  “  tone  ”  of  the  peasant  overpowered  the  “  tone  ” 

of  great  councils  or  solemn  sanhedrims.  The  case, 

■ 

too,  is  more  strongly  in  favor  of  Christ,  when  it  is 
remembered  that  he  abrogated  institutions  which  had 
existed  for  ages  under  the  special  sanction  of  God. 
Moses,  it  will  be  allowed,  spoke  with  u  the  authorita¬ 
tive  tone  and  earnestness  of  a  Jew,”  yet  Christ  abol¬ 
ished  much  that  Moses  had  inaugurated.  Isaiah, 
Jeremiah,  and  Daniel  spoke  with  u  the  authoritative 
tone  and  earnestness  of  a  Jew,”  yet  they  spoke  of 
another,  not  of  themselves  ;  but  Christ  was  his  own 
theme  and  his  own  expositor.  His  immediate  disci¬ 
ples  would  not  be  wanting  in  “  the  authoritative  tone 
and  earnestness  of  a  Jew,”  yet  every  one  of  them  did 
his  wonderful  works,  not  in  his  own  name,  but  in  the 
name  of  Christ.  Looking,  therefore,  simply  at  the 
facts,  it  must  be  admitted,  even  in  a  fuller  sense  than 
that  conveyed  by  his  enemies,  that  u  never  man  spake 
like  this  man,”  —  not  even  Moses,  not  the  great  seers  , 
of  Israel,  not  Elijah  on  Carmel,  not  John  in  the  wil¬ 
derness,  nor  the  contemporary  disciples  ;  —  he  was 
what  he  distinctly  claimed  to  be,  —  separate  from  all, 
because  greater  than  all. 


192 


ECCE  DEUS. 


The  manner  in  which  Christ’s  followers  have  re* 
ported  him  is  truly  marvellous,  —  a  point  which  calls 
for  serious  thought  on  the  part  of  all  who  wish  to  go 
carefully  through  the  incidental  and  tributary  evi¬ 
dence.  In  our  own  day  it  is  so  common  to  have 
reports  of  speeches,  that  we  think  little  of  them ; 
though  in  many  cases  so  wonderful,  yet  they  have 
come  to  be  regarded  as  matters  of  course.  But  the 
disciples  were  not  shorthand  writers ;  we  do  not  find 
that  one  of  them  was  elected  clerk,  and  that  in  the 
evening  of  each  day  he  made  entries  in  a  common 
journal  which  all  could  read  and  revise ;  yet  they 
report  his  discourses  often  in  the  first  person,  and  pre¬ 
serve  all  the  sharpness  and  vivacity  of  dialogue,  re¬ 
tort,  extemporaneous  definition,  and  appeal.  We  feel 
throughout  that  we  are  reading  the  words  of  a  talker, 
not  of  an  author ;  all  the  sharp  edge  of  free  speech  is 
singularly  preserved  ;  so  much  so  that  with  the  least 
effort  of  imagination,  we  can  be  present  at  the  deliv¬ 
ery  of  every  discourse,  or  at  every  passage  at  arms, 
between  Christ  and  his  opponents.  A  strange,  yet 
pleasant  feeling  of  nearness  to  the  event  steals  over 
every  reader  of  the  evangelic  story ;  no  lengthening 
shadows  of  distance  diminish  the  reader’s  interest ; 
everything  is  at  hand  !  In  reading  The  Taws  we  are 
always  conscious  of  the  presence  of  an  artist.  Plato 
has,  indeed,  arranged  all  the  parts  taken  by  the  Guest, 
Clinias,  and  Megillus  with  great  skill,  determining  the 
proportions  and  balancing  the  conversation  with  a 
very  fine  appreciation  of  the  requirements  of  the  dia¬ 
logue  ;  yet  throughout  the  elaborate  production,  we 
feel  that  it  is  all  art ,  all  the  work  of  one  master,  who 


THESE  SAYINGS  OF  MINE.  1 93 

in  the  retirement  of  his  home  apportioned  and  decided 
everything  so  as  to  work  out  the  particular  object  he 
intended  to  compass.  On  the  other  hand,  in  reading 
the  Gospels  we  feel  that  everything  is  life-like,  spon¬ 
taneous,  and  unfinished,  yet  suggestive  and  provoca¬ 
tive  of  thought  beyond  anything  that  has  ever  come 
from  the  tongue  or  pen  of  man.  Yet  these  Gospels 
contain  no  prepared  speeches,  no  formal  compositions 
—  nothing  but  “sayings,”  often  jagged.,  broken,  un¬ 
connected,  yet  singularly  full  of  life.  The  youngest 
author  could  make  a  better  mechanical  arrangement, 
but  the  oldest  could  utter  no  such  electric  words. 
Plato’s  Definitions  are  practically  forgotten,  but  the 
Nazarene’s  words  intermingle  with  universal  civiliza¬ 
tion  ;  and  this  is  the  more  remarkable  as  they  were 
not  formally  arranged.  A  great  composer  said  that 
he  was  spending  a  long  time  over  his  work  because 
he  intended  it  to  live  long,  but  this  Galilean  peasant 
talks  extemporaneously,  as  if  simply  answering  the 
question  of  the  hour ;  yet  his  words  float  over  all  gen¬ 
erations,  and  are  prized  by  men  to-day  as  if  they  had 
been  addressed  exclusively  to  themselves.  This  is, 
perhaps,  the  most  wonderful  characteristic  of  the 
words  of  Jesus.  Can  this  be  accounted  for  by  “  the 
authoritative  tone  and  earnestness  of  a  Jew”?  Is  it 
not  rather  to  be  accounted  for  by  “  the  authoritative 
tone  and  earnestness”  of  the  Son  of  Alan?  These 
“sayings”  are  not  local  lamps,  but  suns  set  in  the 
firmament  commanding  the  range  of  all  nations.  The 
Nicomachean  Ethics  are  certainly  distinguished  by  a 
marvellous  comprehension  of  the  peculiarities  of  hu¬ 
man  nature ;  yet  who  will  say  that  the  words  of  Aris- 

9 


J94 


ECCE  DEUS. 


totle  are  quick  with  the  same  intensity  of  life  that  is 
characteristic  of  the  “savings”  of  Christ?  They  are, 
no  doubt,  wise,  critical,  and  often  most  practical ;  yet 
the  minuteness  of  definition  and  the  tedious  redun¬ 
dancy  of  detail  give  them  a  scholastic  air  which  is  lit¬ 
tle  adapted  to  the  tumultuous  life  of  all  nations.  The 
best  philosophies  of  the  ancient  civilization  descend 
so  much  into  detail  as  to  leave  no  scope  for  the  play 
of  life  on  the  part  of  the  reader.  Everything  is  num¬ 
bered,  labelled,  docketed,  —  there  it  is,  take  it,  or  be  a 
fool.  Plato,  as  before  pointed  out,  was  so  voluminous 
in  his  details,  going  from  statesmanship,  philosophy, 
science,  and  rhetoric  to  early  rising,  hunting,  dancing, 
money-lending,  and  Sicilian  cookery,  as  to  give  one 
the  idea  that  he  undertook  to  do  the  work  of  a  domes¬ 
tic  gasfitter  rather  than  to  bring  men  into  the  light  of 
the  sun.  He  is  so  minute  as  to  place  a  lamp  at  the 
corner  of  every  street,  at  the  entrance  of  every  house, 
and  in  every  room  of  every  habitation.  He  was  a 
very  skilful  gasfitter,  and  very  careful  ;  he  ran  his  trial- 
light  over  every  tube  and  every  tap,  but  it  may  be 
doubted  whether,  after  all,  he  was  more  than  a  pains¬ 
taking  gasfitter,  —  a  high  character,  too,  considering 
the  general  darkness  of  his  time.  Now,  Christ,  instead 
of  intermeddling  with  artificial  or  secondary  light,  at 
once,  with  something  more  than  u  the  authoritative 
tone  and  earnestness  of  a  Jew,”  announced  himself  as 
“  the  Light  of  the  world,”  —  not  Holman  Hunt’s 
“  Light  of  the  World,”  who  resembles  a  belated  and 
forlorn  traveller  carrying  a  lantern,  but  a  man  who 
had  the  light  in  him,  and  through  whom  it  gleamed 
like  the  sun  through  a  summer  cloud.  Plato  lighted 


THESE  SAYINGS  OF  MINE. 


rSb 

his  age  with  gas,  Christ  lighted  the  world  with  the 
sun  ;  the  one  was  local,  the  other  universal ;  the  one 
changeable,  the  other  permanent.  The  heathen  phi¬ 
losophers  gave  directions,  Christ  gave  life.  Aristotle 
expounded  diametrical  conjunction  ;  Christ  said,  44  As 
ye  would  that  men  should  do  unto  you,  do  ye  even  so 
unto  them.”  Cicero  wrote  excellent  advices  on  friend¬ 
ship  ;  Christ  said,  44  Love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself.” 
Plato  wrote  wise  prescriptions  for  particular  diseases ; 
Christ  infused  his  own  life  into  men.  The  Pythago¬ 
reans  wrote  for  favorite  circles  ;  Christ  sent  his  gospel 
to  44  all  nations.”  Aristotle  quotes  from  Plato,  Plato 
refers  to  Homer,  and  the  pages  of  Cicero  abound  with 
quotations  and  allusions  ;  but  Christ  quotes  immedi¬ 
ately  from  the  Father,  and  by  so  much  speaks  the 
universal  language. 

Christ  does  not  appeal  to  men  as  the  heathen  phi¬ 
losophers  did.  They  ask  opinions,  court  criticism,  and 
even  the  wily  and  garrulous  Socrates  gives  men  an 
opportunity  of  differing  from  him  ;  but  Christ,  with 
41  the  authoritative  tone  and  earnestness  ”  of  the  Son 
of  God,  says,  44  This  is  absolute ;  believe  it  and  be 
saved,  or  reject  it  and  be  damned.”  He  says  that  he 
came  from  the  Father,  that  he  speaks  the  word  of  the 
Father,  and  that  he  is  returning  to  the  Father.  So 
there  is  nothing  between  him  and  God  ;  immediately 
behind  him,  though  invisible,  lies  infinitude,  and  he 
sets  himself  up  as  the  medium  on  which  the  voice  of 
the  Infinite  is  broken  into  human  sounds.  When  a 
man  says,  44 1  came  forth  from  the  Father,  and  am 
come  into  the  world  ;  again  I  leave  the  world,  and  go 
unto  the  Father,”  he  simply  excludes  controversy; 


196 


ECCE  DEUS; 


there  is  no  common  ground  between  him  and  his 
interlocutors ;  and,  when  his  words  are  sustained  by 
such  mighty  deeds  as  abound  in  thfe  life  of  Christ,  one 
of  two  conclusions  is  inevitable  —  either  the  man  is 

k 

speaking  the  most  sublime  truth  or  he  is  uttering  the 
most  awful  falsehoods.  He  cannot*  occupy  any  mid¬ 
dle  position.  No  man  may  make  himself  “equal 
with  God,”  and  yet  pass  in  society  iperely  as  a  good 
man.  The  morality  of  language  would  be  violated. 
All  human  relations  would  be  disorganized.  The 
term  “  God  ”  might  be  used  to  palm  off  the  most 
infamous  charlatanism,  and  all  exactness  of  language 
would  be  supplanted  by  the  exaggerations  of  an 
inflamed  and  incoherent  ideality. 

At  the  risk  of  speaking  paradoxic  d^y,  it  may  be 
said  that  the  sayings  of  Christ  are  divme  because  they 
are  so  human,  and  are  human  because^  they  are  so 
divine.  “  He  knew  what  was  in  ma|,M  and  this 
knowledge  of  human  nature  was  his  gi;eat  weapon 
alike  of  attack  and  defence.  The  intense^  humanness 
of  Christ’s  life  is  perhaps  most  seen  and;  felt  in  his 
never-failing  sympathy  with  all  the  conditions  of  hu¬ 
man  experience.  When  he  tells  men  not  to  think 
about  what  they  are  to  eat,  it  is  because  he  himself  is 
thinking  about  that  subject  for  them,  and  is  prepared 
to  feed  them  with  his  own  hand :  when  he  calls  men 
to  courage,  he  means  them  to  draw  upon  his  own 
power :  when  he  says,  “  Seek  first  the  kingdom  of 
God,”  he  is  prepared  to  make  up  all  that  is  wanting 
for  the  daily  life.  He  repeatedly  referred  to  his 
miracles  in  order  to  stimulate  the  faith  of  his  fol¬ 
lowers  ;  —  “  How  many  baskets  full  of  fragments  took 


THESE  SAYINGS  OF  MINE. 


197 


ye  up?”  He  thus  made  recollection  the  ground  of 
hope  by  teaching  that  divine  power  was  not  exhausted 
by  the  performance  of  a  single  miracle.  There  is  a 
kind  of  power  which  exhausts  itself  in  one  great 
effort,  but  it  is  not  living  power ;  it  is  mechanical,  not 
dynamical  ;  and,  though  it  be  seen  in  human  history, 
it  is  a  spasm  of  weakness,  not  the  throb  of  a  healthy 
heart.  Christ  told  men  that  the  power  which  had 
worked  one  miracle  could  work  another,  and  that 
what  was  given  was  but  a  hint  of  the  resources  that 
were  untouched.  This  could  not  but  substantially  aid 
the  effect  of  his  teaching  respecting  that  all-exciting 
and  ever-pressing  subject  —  to-morrow.  To  most 
men  “  to-morrow  ”  had  been  a  spectre,  but  Christ 
showed  how  it  might  be  an  angel.  When  men  looked 
forward  to  it  with  fear,  Christ  inquired,  with  the 
slightest  tremor  of  reproach  in  his  tone,  “  How  many 
baskets  full  of  fragments  took  ye  up  ?  ”  Christ  never 
held  history  in  contempt.  He  made  yesterday  the 
prophet  of  to-morrow.  All  this  personality  of  appeal, 
combined  with  all  this  practical  demonstration  of  care¬ 
fulness  of  human  comfort,  showed  that  Christ  never 
talked  at  men,  but  always  to  them.  His  humanness 
was  his  power.  Apart  from  it  he  never  could  have 
been  so  great  a  talker.  Men  would  have  become 
weary,  but  in  his  company  they  were  insensible  of  the 
flight  of  time.  Men  that  heard  him  only  on  one  set 
of  subjects  left  him,  but  those  who  had  heard  him  on 
the  deepest  questions  said,  uTo  whom  can  we  go? 
Thou  hast  the  words  of  eternal  life.”  The  heart  lived 
on  such  music. 

There  is  one  peculiarity  about  the  “  sayings  ”  of 


ECCE  DEUS. 


I98 

Christ  which  is  not  claimed  by  the  great  philosophers, 
and  which  cannot  be  accounted  for  by  “  the  authorita¬ 
tive  tone  and  earnestness  of  a  Jew ;  ”  that  is  to  say, 
Christ’s  “  sayings  ”  determined  the  destiny  of  all  who 
heard  them,  and  this  peculiarity  he  specially  pointed 
out  as  enduring  forever.  To  have  heard  these  u  say¬ 
ings  ”  is  to  have  incurred  the  gravest  responsibility. 
A  man  may  read  the  Ethics  of  Aristotle,  and  treat  the 
reasoning  with  contempt  without  endangering  his 
fate ;  but  no  man  can  read  Christ’s  “  sayings  ”  without 
finding  “  saved  ”  upon  one  side  and  “  damned  ”  upon 
the  other.  Is  this  dogmatism  on  the  part  of  Christ? 
Undoubtedly.  God  must  be  dogmatic.  If  God  could 
hesitate,  he  would  not  be  God.  Do  we  stumble  at  the 
solemn  words,  u  He  that  believeth  shall  be  saved ;  he 
that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned”?  Why  should 
we?  An  agriculturist  says  practically,  “  Go  ye  into 
all  the  world,  and  say  to  every  creature  that  there  is  a 
particular  season  for  sowing  seed :  he  that  believeth 
shall  be  saved  —  shall  have  a  harvest ;  he  that  be¬ 
lieveth  not  shall  be  lost — shall  have  no  harvest.” 
There  is  thus  a  gospel  of  agriculture :  why  not  a 
gospel  of  salvation?  Men’s  disbelief  of  God  will 
damn  them  in  farming ;  why  not  in  religion  ?  Does 
God  speak  decisively  in  the  one  case  and  hesitatingly 
in  the  other?  There  must  be  a  climacteric  point  —  a 
point  of  saving  or  damning  —  in  all  the  declarations 
of  God,  because  he  has  spoken  the  ultimate  word  on 
all  the  subjects  which  he  has  disclosed.  The  truth 
upon  any  matter,  high  or  low,  is  the  point  of  salva¬ 
tion  or  damnation.  The  man  who  merely  points  out 
the  right  road  to  a  traveller  is  in  a  position  (with 


THESE  SAYINGS  OF  MINE. 


I99 


proper  modification  of  the  terms)  to  say  to  that 
traveller,  “  He  that  believeth  shall  be  saved  ;  he  that 
believeth  not  shall  be  damned  :  ”  in  other  words,  “  Go 
thus  and  you  will  reach  the  object  of  your  journey,  but 
go  so  and  you  will  never  reach  it.”  This  is  the  posi¬ 
tion  which  Christ  assumes,  u  He  that  believeth  me 
hath  life  ;  he  that  believeth  not  me  hath  not  life.”  Is 
such  a  projection  of  his  personality  consistent  with  his 
being  simply  one  who  spoke  with  “  the  authoritative 
tone  and  earnestness  of  a  Jew  ”? 

In  the  u  sayings  ”  of  Christ  special  prominence  is 
given  to  a  peculiar  form  of  teaching  known  as  Para¬ 
bles.  The  entire  history  of  religious  thought  might  be 
written  under  the  twofold  division  of  Dogma  and 
Parable.  We  are  passing  through  what  may  be 
emphatically  characterized  as  the  parabolic  era , 
taking  its  tone  and  order  of  procession  from  the 
transitional  and  most  excited  state  of  the  intellec¬ 
tual  world.  In  periods  of  intellectual  quiescence, 
it  is  found  that  the  religious  world  is  settled  firmly 
upon  theological  dogma ;  but,  in  periods  of  great 
intellectual  agitation  in  scientific  and  philosophical 
inquiry,  the  religious  idea  passes  into  what  may  be 
called  the  parabolic  phase;  not  that  dogma  is,  or  can 
be,  destroyed,  but  that  the  mental  nature  is  engaged 
upon  problems  rich,  truly  or  deceitfully,  in  their 
promise  of  results.  This  is  illustrated  vividly  in 
Christ’s  own  method  of  teaching.  First  he  gave 
doctrine,  then  he  gave  parable  ;  the  first  met  the  posi¬ 
tive  want  of  the  religious  nature,  and  the  second 
stimulated  all  that  was  best  on  the  ideal  side  of  the 
intellectual  nature.  In  this  manner  Christ  escaped 


200 


ECCE  DEUS. 


the  stern  and  cold  finality  which  is  characteristic  not 
only  of  all  exclusively  dogmatic  teaching,  but  of  all 
teaching  that  is  narrow,  shallow,  and  vulgar.  In 
Christ’s  u  sayings  ”  there  was  always  something  be¬ 
yond,  —  a  quickening  sense  that  the  words  were  but 
the  surface  of  the  thought ;  there  was  nothing  to 
betoken  conclusion,  much  less  exhaustion  ;  there  was 
ever  a  luminous  opening  even  on  the  clouds  that  lay 
deepest  along  the  horizon,  which  invited  the  spectator 
to  advance  and  behold  yet  fuller  visions.  The  dogma 
was  decisive ;  but  the  parable  set  the  heart  longing  foi 
closer  intercourse  with  the  parabolist.  The  dogma 
marked  the  distance  which  had  been  travelled  ;  the 
parable  pointed  to  the  distance  which  lay  far  ahead ; 
dogma  was  finished  like  yesterday ,  parable  had  about 
it  all  the  haze,  yet  all  the  promise  and  allurement,  of 
to-morrow.  It  was  thus  that  in  a  unique  sense  Christ 
brought  out  of  his  treasure  u  things  new”  and  main¬ 
tained  his  hold  upon  the  ages,  filling  and  satisfying 
their  entire  capacity  of  vision  and  desire.  The  para¬ 
ble  takes  the  inquirer  farther  along  the  line  of  truth 
than  the  dogma  does.  It  stands  in  relation  to  dogma 
as  poetry  to  prose.  “  Parabolica,”  as  Bacon  says, 
“  vero  est  historia  cum  typo,  quae  intellectualia  de- 
ducit  ad  sensum.”  Even  the  dogmatic  arithmetician 
calls  in  the  aid  of  the  parabolic  algebraist  at  a  certain 
point  in  the  science  of  numbers ;  and,  from  what  may 
be  described  as  the  parabolic  side  of  truth,  pushes 
his  inquiries  farther  than  he  could  have  done  by 
the  narrow  dogmas  of  simple  arithmetic.  He  is  car¬ 
ried  forward  by  symbolism  which  is  founded  on 
dogma,  yet  which  reaches,  ideally,  farther  than 
dogma;  and,  when  the  symbolic  arithmetician  says, 


THESE  SAYINGS  OF  MINE. 


201 


Let  x  represent  the  unknown  quantity,”  he  says  in 
his  own  special  sphere  of  inquiry  what  Christ  says  in 
-the  loftiest  region  of  research  when  he  says,  “  The 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  unto — The  kingdom  of 
heaven  is  the  “  unknown  quantity  ”  which  Christ 
came  to  reveal,  and  he  helped  men  to  follow  him  in 
his  wonderful  processes  by  saying,  “  Let  a  grain  of 
mustard  seed,  let  a  costly  pearl,  let  a  man  sowing 
good  seed  in  his  field,  let  leaven,  which  a  woman 
cast  into  three  measures  of  meal,  let  a  net  cast  into 
the  sea,  represent  the  unknown  quantity.”  Religious 
symbolism  gives  scope  for  all  that  is  most  profitable 
in  fancy,  speculation,  or  the  great  dramatic  element 
which  is  in  every  man.  It  provides  for  the  enthu¬ 
siasm  of  the  renewed  nature,  for  that  “madness” 
which  Plato  declares  to  be  essential  to  poet  and 
prophet.  It  gives  such  an  idea  of  the  unexplained 
range  of  thought  and  the  possibilities  of  mind,  as  goes 
far  to  explain  and  justify  the  bold  saying  of  the 
ancient  Sophists,  that  “  probabilities  were  more  to  be 
valued  than  truths.” 

“True  fiction  hath  in  it  a  higher  end 
Than  fact;  it  is  the  possible  compared 
With  what  is  merely  positive,  and  gives 
To  the  conceptive  soul  an  inner  world, 

A  higher,  ampler  heaven  than  that  wherein 
The  nations  sun  themselves.” 

In  connection  with  this  parabolic  teaching  Christ 
uttered  one  most  remarkable  “saying”  to  his  disciples. 
He  had  been  indulging  in  most  varied  and  vivid 
symbolism,  and  as  he  concluded  he  said,  “  Have  ye 
understood  all  these  things?  They  say  unto  him, 
Yea,  Lord.  Then  said  he  unto  them,  Therefore 


202 


ECCE  DEUS. 


every  scribe  which  is  instructed  unto  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  is  like  unto  a  man  that  is  ail  householder, 
which  bringeth  forth  out  of  his  treasure  things  new 
and  old.”  Here  is  the  liberty  of  the  Christian  teacher  : 
can  any  charter  be  more  comprehensive?  It  com¬ 
prehends  all  that  is  past  and  all  that  is  to  come ;  it  is 
as  old  as  time,  yet  new  as  summer.  Thus  interpreted, 
Christ  becomes,  as  was  said  in  the  last  chapter,  not 
only  the  contemporary,  but  the  leader  of  every  age. 
He  has  the  old  truth  for  the  heart,  and  the  new  phase 
for  the  eye.  He  meets  the  simple  and  trustful  with 
“  old  things,”  and  encounters  the  doctors  of  all 
temples  with  •  questions  they  cannot  answer,  and 
symbolism  which,  while  it  challenges  their  admira¬ 
tion,  puts  to  the  severest  test  their  genius  for  the 
interpretation  of  signs.  Christ  proceeds  upon  the 
principle  that  the  world  must  be  educated  by  enigmas, 
pictures,  and  problems,  and  he  has  commissioned  his 
Church  to  educate  it  on  this  basis.  He  shows  that  all 
human  life  is  a  parable,  and  that  to  understand  it  men 
must  follow  him  now  as  his  disciples  did  aforetime, 
and  ask  him  to  “  declare  unto  them  the  parable.” 
The  difficulty  of  our  agitated  time  is  to  find  men  who 
combine  the  dogmatist  with  the  parabolist ;  the  chasm 
has  occasioned  very  urgent,  ungenerous,  and  bitter 
strife.  It  is  forgotten  that  the  Dogmatist  may  be  right 
so  far  as  he  goes,  and  that  the  Parabolist  may  be 
equally  right ;  what  is  wanted  is  completion  by  amal¬ 
gamation  ;  but  where,  in  the  present  chaos  of  religious 
questions,  can  we  hope  to  find  a  perfect  education? 
The  reverent  inquirer*  though  he  be  a  sceptic  (not 


THESE  SAYINGS  OF  MINE. 


203 


a  derisive  and  self-idolatrous  buffoon),  may  after 
all  be  a  brother  who  has,  by  the  very  bent  of  his 
mental  constitution,  begun  his  studies  rather  on  the 
parabolic  than  on  the  dogmatic  side  of  truth,  and 
who  yet  will  descend  from  the  hill  of  symbolism  with 
two  tables  of  very  stern  and  decisive  dogma. 

This  recalls  the  fact  that  men  proceed  even  in  re¬ 
ligious  inquiry  according  to  the  base  of  their  intel¬ 
lectual  nature.  Some  men  are  prepared  for  dogma  at 
once,  and  beyond  dogma  they  can  never  move.  To 
them,  Christian  theology  (we  will  not  say  Christian 
ethics)  is  little  better  than  an  embalmed  mummy  hid¬ 
den  in  the  solemn  pyramid  of  the  past,  to  be  visited 
on  Sabbatic  occasions,  looked  at,  admired,  and  left  in 
awful  solitude  and  silence  until  the  next  visit.  To 
men  of  another  and  better  mould,  “  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  is  like  unto  ”  all  that  is  elevating  in  life,  or 
permanent  in  beauty,  or  pure  in  love,  or  satisfying  in 
truth.  What  wonder  if  such  men  fail  to  understand 
one  another,  or  if  the  word  of  strife  be  heard  in  the 
discussion  of  subjects  which  belong  to  the  innermost 
shrine  of  the  Temple  of  Peace?  The  cause  of  such 
strife  is  not  so  much  to  be  found  on  the  side  of  re¬ 
ligious  inquiry  as  on  the  side  of  human  nature.  Man 
does  not  understand  man  when  separated  by  one  de¬ 
gree  of  latitude ;  nay,  man  may  speak  a  foreign  lan¬ 
guage  even  to  his  own  brother.  Now  it  is  distinctly 
stated  that  Jesus  “knew  all  men,  and  needed  not  that 
any  should  testify  of  man,  for  he  knew  what  was  in 
man  ;  ”  that  is  to  say,  he  had  a  perfect  knowledge  of 
human  nature,  and  in  his  teaching  he  set  u  the  king- 


204 


ECCE  DEUS. 


dom  of  heaven  ”  at  every  variety  of  angle,  so  that  all 
men  might  get  that  particular  view  of  it  which  would 
most  successfully  meet  their  wants.  This  could  be 
done  only  by  a  teacher  who  had  a  perfect  knowledge 
of  the  nature  which  he  undertook  to  educate.  No 
mental  characteristic  escaped  him.  Every  mood  of 
the  soul  elicited  from  him  the  proper  response.  The 
consequence  was,  that  he  was  not  followed  by  any 
particular  class  of  men,  but  all  men  went  after  him  — 
the  multitude  after  the  multitudinous  man.  His  dis¬ 
ciples  are  of  course  but  fractional  men,  and  the  power 
of  the  Christian  ministry  is  proportionately  impaired. 
The  preacher’s  accent  often  makes  him  a  stranger  to 
his  hearers.  He  is  of  course  limited  by  his  own  indi¬ 
viduality,  and  how  can  the  shallow  river  of  his  thought 
carry  the  merchandise  of  the  world?  The  preacher’s 
power  must  always  be  in  the  ratio  of  his  knowledge 
of  human  nature.  The  more  of  man  he  has  in  him, 
the  more  he  will  command  the  attention  and  homage 
of  men.  He  is  but  a  learned  fool  who  knows  every¬ 
thing  but  himself.  His  teaching  will  be  confined  to  a 
few  self-contained  dogmas ;  it  will  never  give  signs  of 
that  prophetic  fire  which  shrines  itself  in  poesy  or 
parable.  In  discoursing  upon  rhetoric,  Socrates  wise¬ 
ly  touches  upon  this  ^subject  of  human  nature.  He 
tells  Phasdrus  that,  “  since  the  power  of  speech  is  that 
of  leading  the  soul,  it  is  necessary  that  he  who  means 
to  be  an  orator  should  know  how  many  kinds  of  soul 
there  are.”  And  again  he  says,  “  Unless  a  man  has 
reckoned  up  the  different  natures  of  those  who  will 
have  to  hear  him,  and  is  able  tc  divide  things  them- 


THESE  SAYINGS  OF  MINE.  205 

selves  <nto  species,  and  to  comprehend  the  several 
particulars  under  one  general  idea,  he  will  never  be 
skilled  in  the  art  of  speaking  so  far  as  it  is  possible  for 
a  man  to  be  so  ;  ”  a  most  marvellous  illustration  of  the 
power  of  him  who  spake  as  never  man  spake,  who 
needed  not  that  any  should  testify  of  men,  for  he  knew 
what  was  in  man.  He  varied  the  prescription  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  diagnosis.  To  one  man  he  said,  “  Sell  all 
thou  hast ;  ”  to  another,  “  Ye  must  be  born  again  ;  ”  to 
a  third,  u  Keep  the  two  commandments  of  the  law  :  ” 
he  took  the  wise  in  their  own  craftiness,  and  upon 
the  vision  of  the  dreamer  he  opened  such  glories  as 
had  never  shone  from  the  artificial  heavens  of  the 
poets. 

We  may  claim  for  Christ’s  “  sayings  ”  an  originality, 
a  compass,  and  living  energy  such  as  have  not  been 
rivalled  by  any  speaker.  This  would  probably  be 
admitted  even  by  the  more  self-controlled  class  of 
sceptics.  Assuming  this  to  be  so,  we  are  thrown  back 
upon  an  old  inquiry,  u  Whence  hath  this  man  this 
wisdom  and  these  mighty  works?  Is  not  this  the  car¬ 
penter’s  son?  Is  not  his  mother  called  Mary,  and  his 
brethren  James,  and  Joses,  and  Simon,  and  Judas? 
And  his  sisters,  are  they  not  all  with  us?  Whence, 
then,  hath  this  man  all  these  things?”  That  question 
remains  to  be  answered  by  those  who  deny  his  God¬ 
head.  Viewed  from  the  human  stand-point,  how  could 
Christ’s  contemporaries  be  other  than  confounded  by 
Christ’s  wisdom  ?  Can  any  man  rise  above  the  nor¬ 
mal  conditions  of  his  race?  Is  there  a  secret  way 
from  the  nethermost  stratum  of  society  uj>  co  the  emi 


20  6 


ECCE  DEUS. 


nence  of  superhuman  wisdom?  How  is  it  that  only 
one  man  has  ventured  on  the  giddy  ascent  ?  His 
“  sayings”  have  no  charm  of  style;  poetic  surprises 
are  never  attempted  ;  nearly  everything  is  curt,  abrupt, 
and  barely  allusive,  yet  to-day,  as  in  the  days  of  his 
flesh,  all  who  weigh  his  words  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  “  never  man  spake  like  this  man.”  Is  there  no 
argument  in  this? 


207 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

CHRIST  AS  AN  INTERLOCUTOR. 

THE  preceding  chapter  treats  mainly  of  the  formal 
“  sayings”  of  Christ ;  it  is  now  proposed  to  look 
at  “sayings”  which  were  uttered  without  the  possi¬ 
bility  of  preparation,  and  which,  for  that  reason,  must 
afford  valuable  incidental  evidence  of  the  quality  of 
Christ’s  mind.  We  should  shrink  from  applying  such 
a  test  to  any  merely  human  speaker ;  for  as  “  great 
Homer  sometimes  nods,”  so  the  most  careful  student 
may  occasionally  make  slips  in  extemporaneous  con¬ 
versation  which  contrast  broadly  with  the  exactness 
of  his  formal  preparations.  He  might  properly  pro¬ 
test  against  being  taken  at  a  disadvantage,  and  would 
certainly  claim  the  right  of  revising  his  opinions  be¬ 
fore  finally  committing  himself  to  them.  Jesus  Christ 
never  claimed  any  such  right ;  he  never  protects  him¬ 
self  by  a  saving  clause ;  he  never  hints  at  possible 
modifications  of  his  opinions  ;  but  immediately  and 
unchangeably  affirms  his  judgment  of  every  case  that 
is  brought  before  him.  He  was  opposed  not  only  by 
his  disciples,  but  by  the  strongest  and  craftiest  of  the 
iearned  sects,  who  to  the  sharpness  of  the  ripest  cul¬ 
tivation  added  the  sting  of  the  bitterest  malignity. 
Under  such  circumstances  the  real  power  and  quality 
of  Christ’s  mind  would  be  shown,  and  the  measure 


2oS 


ECCE  DEUS. 


of  tlje  influence  of  provocation  upon  his  intellectual 
processes  be  disclosed.  It  is  proposed,  then,  to  look 
at  his  common  talk,  and  to  inquire  'whether  there  is 
anything  on  the  face  of  the  answers  themselves  to 
explain  the  supremacy  of  fesus  Christ  as  an  inter¬ 
locutor?  If  his  supremacy  was  functional,  then  it 
was  arbitrary  ;  if  it  was  personal,  then  it  was  rational. 
Is  it  the  man’s  office,  or  the  man’s  quality ,  that  makes 
him  supreme? 

A  few  instances  will  show  the  respective  positions 
occupied  by  Jesus  Christ  and  his  opponents.  We  may 
begin  with  collisions  of  opinion  which  occurred  be¬ 
tween  him  and  the  disciples.  When  the  people  were 
in  a  desert  place,  Jesus  Christ  commanded  them  to  be 
fed.  The  disciples  pronounced  the  command  imprac¬ 
ticable,  and  apparently  they  had  reason  on  their  side. 
Here  was  the  point  of  difference.  Who  spoke  the 
magnanimous  and  generous  word,  — Jesus  Christ,  or 
the  disciples?  On  another  occasion,  children  were 
being  intruded  on  Christ’s  attention  ;  the  disciples  pro¬ 
tested  against  the  annoyance,  but  Jesus  said,  “Forbid 
them  not,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven.” 
Who  spoke  the  magnanimous  and  generous  word, — 
Jesus  Christ,  or  the  disciples?  When  the  Samaritan 
villagers  did  not  receive' Christ,  because  his  face  was 
as  though  he  would  go  to  Jerusalem,  James  and  John 
proposed  to  command  fire  to  come  down  from  heaven 
and  consume  them  ;  but  Jesus  rebuked  them  and  said, 
“  Ye  know  not  what  manner  of  spirit  ye  are  of.” 
Here  is  a  direct  collision  of  opinion  :  who  spoke  the 
magnanimous  and  generous  word, — Jesus  Christ,  or 
the  disciples?  On  another  occasion  John  showed 


I 


CHRIS  1  AS  AN  INTERLOCUTOR.  209 

what  the  disciples  would  have  done  with  collateral 
and  unrecognized  workers  ;  he  said,  “  Master,  we  saw 
one  casting  out  devils  in  thy  name,  and  we  forbade 
him,  because  he  followeth  not  with  us.”  Was  not 
this  a  reason  strong  enough  to  carry  the  judgment  of 
all  men  of  order?  Yet  Jesus  said,  “  Forbid  him  not, 
for  he  that  is  not  against  us  is  for  us.”  Who  spoke 
the  magnanimous  and  generous  word,  — Jesus  Christ, 
or  the  disciples?  When  Peter  asked  him  how  often 
he  was  to  forgive  his  brother,  Peter  suggested  seven 
times  ;  Christ  answered,  “  Not  only  until  seven  times, 
out  until  seventy  times  seven  :  ”  who  spoke  the  mag¬ 
nanimous  and  generous  word,  — Jesus  Christ,  or  the 
disciples? 

The  remarkable  point  in  such  instances  is  that  the 
disciples  themselves  (the  corrected  men,  not  the  cor¬ 
recting  Man)  are  the  narrators.  Men  are  not  prone 
to  publish  their  own  ignorance  or  expose  their  own 
errors,  yet  this  is  literally  what  the  disciples  did.  In 
every  instance  they  show  that  they  were  wrong  and 
that  their  Master  was  right.  They  never  seek,  though 
they  had  the  pen  in  their  own  hands,  to  modify  Christ’s 
opinion,  or  to  interpose  after-thoughts  which  would 
throw  doubt  on  Christ’s  judgment.  As  impostors, 
they  need  not  have  set  Christ  up  as  being  always 
right;  they  might  have  paid  an  occasional  tribute  to 
their  own  sagacity ;  they  might  have  outvoted  him 
sometimes ;  yet  they  concur  (without  one  another’s 
knowledge)  in  stating  that  in  all  disputed  or  misunder¬ 
stood  cases,  they  were  always  wrong  and  he  was 
always  right.  Nor  do  they  state  this  in  summary 
terms ;  they  report  the  cases  in  detail,  and  it  is  evi- 


210 


ECCE  DEUS. 


dent  upon  the  face  of  the  answers  themselves  that 
Jesus  Christ’s  supremacy  was  not  an  arbitrary  lord- 
ship,  but  the  legitimate  influence  which  attaches  to 
great  intellectual  and  moral  elevation.  Sometimes, 
in  human  relations,  reasoning  comes  into  collision 
with  authority,  but  in  such  cases  authority  overrides 
all  opposition  :  the  reasoning  of  soldiers,  for  example, 
may  oppose  the  authority  of  commanders,  but  it  is  — 

“  Theirs  not  to  make  reply, 

Theirs  not  to  reason  why, 

Theirs  but  to  do  and  die ;  ” 

they  are  “  men  under  authority,”  —  it  may  be  an  au¬ 
thority  with  reason,  or  an  authority  against  reason, 
but  the  determining  fact  is  authority.  In  the  case  of 
Jesus  Christ’s  answers,  the  authority  is  the  reason,  and 
the  reason  is  the  authority  ;  the  authority  and  the  rea¬ 
son  are  coincident  and  identical. 

The  foregoing  instances  of  collision  occurred  be¬ 
tween  Christ  and  his  disciples ;  we  have  now  to  look 
at  those  between  Christ  and  his  avowed  opponents. 
His  disciples  might  have  been  disposed  to  yield  readily, 
but  his  enemies  would  maintain  the  dispute  obstinately. 
On  one  occasion  the  Pharisees,  despairing  of  a  casual 
victory,  actually  “  took  counsel  how  they  might  en¬ 
tangle  him  in  his  talk  ;  ”  they  approached  the  attack 
deliberately,  and  by  so  much  had  the  advantage  of 
the  interlocutor  who  was  expected  to  give  an  instant 
answer.  The  force  of  the  Pharisees  was  in  the 
“counsel”  which  they  took;  the  weakness  of  Christ, 
viewed  from  a  purely  human  point,  was  in  his  want 
of  opportunity  for  preparation.  A  number  of  reso* 


CHRIST  AS  AN  INTERLOCUTOR. 


21 1 


lute  partisans,  comprising  disciples  of  the  Pharisees, 
with  the  Herodians,  addressed  Jesus  Christ  in  terms 
which  were  intended  to  elicit  an  answer  from  his 
vanity  rather  than  his  judgment;  they  told  him  that 
he  was  true,  that  he  taught  the  way  of  God  in  truth, 
and  that  he  cared  not  for  any  man,  nor  regarded  the 
person  of  men  (deceitful  words,  which  would  have 
victimized  an  unbalanced  mind),  and  then  they  put 
their  case  before  him.'  Instantly,  as  if  he  had  been 
specially  prepared  for  that  particular  mode  of  attack, 
he  turned  upon  them  and  said,  “  Why  tempt  ye  me, 
ye  hypocrites?  ”  Then  he  told  them  to  render  what 
was  due  alike  to  God  and  to  man.  On  the  same  day 
another  deputation,  this  time  Sadducean,  waited  upon 
him,  and  endeavored  to  bring  him  into  collision  with 
Moses,  upon  what  they  had  conceived  as  a  practical 
difficulty  in  the  resurrection  ;  but  he  told  them  that 
they  erred,  not  knowing  the  Scriptures,  nor  the  power 
of  God,  for  “  in  the  resurrection  they  neither  marry, 
nor  are  given  in  marriage,  but  are  as  the  angels  of 
God  in  heaven.”  Upon  hearing  that  u  he  had  put  the 
Sadducees  to  silence,”  the  Pharisees  resolved  to  make 
another  attempt ;  and  one  of  their  lawyers  put  a  ques¬ 
tion  concerning  the  Law,  which  Jesus  Christ  answered 
as  clearly  and  fully  as  if  he  had  had  specific  notice  of 
the  inquiry.  These  cases  occurred  in  succession,  and 
the  general  opinion,  as  reported,  shows  that  in  none 
of  them  was  Jesus  Christ  worsted.  The  general  opin¬ 
ion  is  expressed  thus :  —  in  the  case  of  the  tribute 
money,  “they  marvelled,  and  left  him,  and  went  their 
way ;  ”  in  the  case  of  the  resurrection,  “  they  were 
astonished  at  his  doctrine  ;  ”  in  the  case  of  the  lawyer, 


212 


ECCE  DEUS. 


and  the  subsequent  discourse,  “  no  man  was  able  to 
answer  him  a  word,  neither  durst  any  man  from  that 
day  forth  ask  him  any  more  questions.” 

The  basis  of  argument  will  be  complete,  if  to  in-  , 
stances  of  opposition  between  Christ  and  his  disciples, 
and  Christ  and  his  enemies,  be  added  an  instance  or 
two  of  Christ’s  method  of  meeting  those  who  were 
immediately  concerned  in  his  judgment  and  death. 
When  he  was  brought  before 'Caiaphas,  it  was  with 
extreme  difficulty  that  the  high  priest  could  prevail 
upon  him  to  speak  ;  not,  indeed,  until  he  had  adjured 
him  by  the  living  God  :  then  the  answer  was,  “Here¬ 
after  shall  ye  see  the  Son  of  Man  sitting  on  the  right 
hand  of  power,  and  coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven.” 
In  other  cases,  neither  Pilate  nor  any  of  the  officers 
could  break  his  silence:  “Jesus  held  his  peace;” 

“  he  answered  nothing;  ”  “  he  answered  him  to  never 
a  word,  insomuch  that  the  governor  marvelled  great¬ 
ly.”  At  last  this  great  speaker  was  silent,  and  his  in¬ 
terrogators  knew  not  the  difference  between  the  silence 
of  obstinacy  and  the  silence  of  a  lamb  brought  to  the 
slaughter.  What  storms  of  the  heart  were  covered 
by  that  silence  !  The  great  purpose  of  God  had  now 
passed  beyond  the  region  of  debate  and  clamor  ; 
words  were  of  no  further  use  ;  the  Man  was  not  on 
his  defence  as  a  criminal,  he  was  on  his  trial  as  a  Sac¬ 
rifice  !  Already  he  had  prayed  that  the  cup  might 
pass,  but  in  a  second  prayer  he  had  been  strengthened 
to  say,  “  Thy  will  be  done  !  ”  After  such  agony  how 
could  he  talk  to  men  whose  questions  were  technical, 
and  whose  share  in  the  work  was  a  mystery  which  no 
explanation  could  simplify?  He  must  now  speak  by 


CHRIST  AS  AN  INTERLOCUTOR.  213 

suffering,  and  by  dying  as  no  other  man  had  ever 
died. 

With  all  these  examples  to  guide  our  judgment,  it 
may  now  be  asked,  Is  there  anything  on  the  face  of 
the  answers  themselves  to  account  for  Christ’s  su¬ 
premacy?  Setting  aside  all  theological  tenets  and 
prejudices,  it  cannot  be  denied  that,  viewed  simply 
as  answers  between  man  and  man,  the  answers  of 
Jesus  Christ  are  superior  in  co?npleteness  to  those  of 
his  interlocutors.  But  what  is  the  value  of  complete- 
•  ness  as  an  argument?  Obviously,  not  in  theology 
only,  but  in  all  the  subjects  of  human  inquiry,  com¬ 
pleteness  is  the  final  test  of  wisdom  and  accuracy. 
He  who  approaches  completeness  approaches  the  ab¬ 
solute  :  he  who  approaches  the  Absolute  approaches 
God.  When  Newton  proved  that  the  force  which 
preserves  planetary  order  is  identical  with  the  force 
by  which  an  apple  falls  to  the  ground,  he  was,  by 
that  discovery,  so  much  nearer  God,  because  so  much 
nearer  a  complete  idea  of  the  universe  than  any  infe¬ 
rior  discoverer  had  ever  been.  Now,  in  all  the  dis¬ 
putes  between  Christ  and  his  contemporaries,  it  will 
be  found  that  the  tendency ,  at  least,  towards  complete¬ 
ness  is  invariably  on  the  side  of  Christ,  —  a  complete¬ 
ness  alike  mental  and  moral.  Christ  never  speaks  the 
narrow  or  intolerant  word  ;  never  does  the  mean  or 
selfish  deed  ;  never  resorts  to  the  reactionary  or  inex- 
pansive  tradition.  He  is  willing  to  feed  the  multitude, 
to  bless  little  children,  to  protect  collateral  though 
unbaptized  workers,  to  walk  two  miles  instead  of  one, 
to  give  his  cloak  as  well  as  his  coat,  to  give  Cassar  his 
due  as  well  as  God,  and  to  trust  his  truth  to  persua- 


214 


ECCE  DEUS. 


sion  rather  than  to  the  sword.  In  all  this,  interpreted 
by  common  sense  alone,  not  by  the  canons  of  secta¬ 
rian  science,  Christ  is  the  great  man,  the  magnani¬ 
mous  man,  the  complete  man  ;  and  even  in  the  awful 
silence  referred  to,  he  would  have  been  less  silent  if 
his  view  had  been  less  complete  ;  it  was  because  he 
saw  all  that  he  said  nothing. 

The  word  ‘^tendency  ”  just  employed  must  not  be 
misunderstood.  The  reason  of  its  use  is,  that  Jesus 
Christ  on  some  occasions  purposely  refrained  from 
giving  complete  answers  ;  but  on  those  occasions  he  , 
generally  intimated  that  the  incompleteness  was  either 
temporary,  or  designed  in  the  special  interest  of  his 
hearers:  for  example,  “What  thou  knowest  not  now 
thou  shalt  know  hereafter  ;  ”  there  the  incompleteness 
was  temporary;  —  and,  in  another  place,  UI  have 
many  things  to  say  unto  you,  but  ye  cannot  bear  them 
aow,”  the  incompleteness  was  studiously  adapted  to 
the  capacity  and  condition  of  the  disciples.  In  addi¬ 
tion  to  such  special  instances,  there  is  the  great  prom¬ 
ise  of  completeness :  “When  he,  the  Spirit  of  truth, 
is  come,  he  will  guide  you  into  all  truth”  The  very 
conception  of  possible  completeness,  accompanied  by 
a  promise  of  its  accomplishment,  on  the  part  of  a 
Galilean  peasant,  is  a  circumstance  which  must  not 
be  overlooked  in  estimating  the  value  of  his  claims. 

Christ’s  supremacy  as  an  interlocutor  rests,  apart 
from  the  proper  arguments  of  the  theologian,  on  the 
completeness  of  his  mental  views  and  the  unequalled 
range  of  his  moral  sympathies  and  services.  He  met 
all  cases  of  perplexity  with  a  deeper  answer,  and  all 
cases  of  distress  with  a  wider  generosity,  than  did  any 


CHRIST  AS  AN  INTERLOCUTOR. 


2I5 


other  man.  Every  idea  he  suggested  was  an  instal¬ 
ment  of  the  u  all-truth  ”  which  the  Spirit  would  re¬ 
veal  ;  and  every  gift  he  gave  was  an  earnest  of  the 
gift  of  his  body  and  his  blood.  Everything  he  said 
and  did,  looked,  tended,  pressed  towards  completeness , 
—  did  so  not  merely  as  a  matter  of  fact,  but  as  a  mat¬ 
ter  of  comparison  ;  and  the  comparison  is  so  marked, 
even  upon  the  face  of  the  evidence,  as  to  place  him 
immeasurably  in  advance  of  all  other  speakers.  In 
advance,  for  example,  of  “  them  of  old  time  ”  who 
knew  the  letter,  but  not  the  spirit,  of  justice  ;  in  ad¬ 
vance  of  Moses,  who  brought  the  Law,  but  could  not 
bring  u  grace  and  truth  ;  ”  as  well  as  in  advance  of 
men  who  exalted  the  tradition  of  the  elders  above  the 
commandment  of  God.  Supremacy  would  be  as¬ 
signed  to  any  speaker  who  gave  the  deepest  answers 
to  questions  which  were  being  controverted  ;  this 
would  be  done  in  common  deference  to  intellectual 
power,  whatever  points  there  might  be  in  the  religious 
creed  of  the  speaker  which  his  hearers  could  not 
accept.  This  would  be  done  too,  not  in  theological 
questions  only,  but  in  all  other  subjects  ;  the  speaker’s 
supremacy  being  determined,  not  by  the  mere  fluency 
or  keenness  of  his  speech,  but  by  its  accuracy,  its  com¬ 
prehensiveness,  its  approach  to  the  “  all-truth.”  It 
may  be  fairly  insisted  that  Jesus  Christ  should  have 
the  advantage  which  would  be  conceded  on  the  com¬ 
mon  ground  of  courteous  justice.  The  man  who 
would  walk  two  miles  excels  in  completeness  the  man 
who  would  walk  only  one  ;  the  man  who  would  give 
his  cloak  as  well  as  his  coat,  excels  in  completeness 


21 6 


ECCE  DEUS. 


the  man  who  would  give  his  coat  only  ;  the  man  who 
would  receive  little  children  as  well  as  adults,  excels 
in  completeness  the  man  who  would  confine  his  atten¬ 
tion  to  the  elder  portions  of  society  ;  the  man  who 
would  divide  his  last  loaf  with  the  hungering  multi- 
tude,  excels  in  completeness  the  man  who  would  pleaa 
his  poverty  in  mitigation  of  his  selfishness  ;  the  man 
who  would  work  a  miracle  in  order  to  pay  the  Tem¬ 
ple  tribute,  excels  in  completeness  the  man  who  would 
avail  himself  of  a  technical  exemption  from  the  im¬ 
post  ;  the  man  who  would  look  approvingly  upon  a 
good  work  done  by  irregular  workers,  excels  in  com¬ 
pleteness  the  man  who  would  subordinate  life  to  for¬ 
mality  ;  the  man  who  would  forgive  seventy  times 
seven  times,  excels  in  completeness  the  man  who 
would  forgive  seven  times;  and,  highest  of  all,  and 
natural  climax  of  all,  the  man  who  would  die  for  his 
enemies  excels  in  completeness  the  man  who  would 
die  for  his  friends  only.  All  the  intermediate  points 
have  been  tending  towards  the  climacteric  point  —  the 
Cross,  which  unites  the  completeness  of  love  with  the 
completeness  of  power.  All  these  points  of  complete¬ 
ness  may  be  distinctly  claimed  for  Jesus  Christ,  on  the 
same  principles  of  criticism  that  would  be  applied  to 
any  character  in  any  department  of  history,  so  that 
hesitation  in  ceding  them  might  be  fairly  denomi¬ 
nated  an  immorality  in  criticism.  Viewed  in  the 
light  of  the  higher  claims  of  the  Christian  writings, 
is  there  anything  to  account  for  this  completeness  — 
a  completeness  not  only  in  the  more  formal  sayings, 
but  in  the  extemporaneous  and  casual  utterances  of 


CHRIST  AS  AN  INTERLOCUTOR. 


217 


Jesus  Christ?  Whence  hath  this  man  this  complete¬ 
ness?  What  if  in  him  dwelt  all  the  fulness  of  the 
Godhead  bodily?  What  if  it  pleased  the  Father  that 
in  him  should  all  fulness  dwell?  And  what  if  men 
receive  out  of  his  fulness  grace  for  grace? 

The  last  question  turns  the  subject  most  practically 
upon  the  Church.  The  supremacy  of  the  Church 
must  be  identical  in  claim  with  the  supremacy  of 
Jesus  Christ.  The  Church  can  hold  its  position  only 
so  long  as  it  can  excel  all  rivals  in  the  completeness 
of  its  answers  to  the  great  problems  which  engage  the 
human  mind.  The  measure  of  its  completeness  is  the 
measure  of  its  supremacy.  If  science  and  philosophy 
return  completer  answers  than  the  Church,  then  the 
Church  is  a  deposed  power,  and  God  has  raised  up 
the  very  stones  as  children  unto  Abraham.  The 
Church  might  have  been  first,  but  its  title  has,  if  such 
be  the  case,  been  foregone  ;  and  now  men  come  from 
the  east  and  from  the  west,  from  the  north  and  from 
the  south  ;  and  the  children,  who  have  lost  all  but 
their  name,  are  shut  out  of  the  kingdom.  The  Church 
cannot  maintain  a  merely  traditionary  supremacy 
against  the  competing  forces  which  distinguish  a 
scientific  civilization.  Its  supremacy  must  be  vital ; 
its  resources  must  be  “  unsearchable  riches.”  When 
Peter  returned  a  complete  answer,  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  were  instantly  promised  to  him  ; 
but  when,  shortly  after,  he  took  an  incomplete  view 
of  Christ’s  journey  to  Jerusalem,  he  was  ordered  be¬ 
hind  as  an  “  offence.”  So  it  will  be  with  the  Church  ; 
she  holds  the  keys  only  so  long  as  she  gives  the  com- 
10 


2lS 


ECCE  DEUS. 


plcte  answer  j  when  she  fails  in  that,  she  is  disinhei- 
ited  and  degraded.  The  doctrine  of  eternal  punish¬ 
ment  is  a  ludicrous  anti-climax  to  her  superficial  and 
mispronounced  dogmas  :  how  difieiently  it  comes  afte* 
Christ’s  own  teaching  we  shall  now  proceed  to  cor 
sider. 


219 


CHAPTER  XV. 

ETERNAL  PUNISHMENTS. 

IT  is  held  by  many  to  be  a  hard  thing  that  any  man 
should  be  damned  for  not  believing  u  these  sayings 
of  mine.”  This  conclusion  must  have  been  reached 
through  a  most  incomplete  apprehension  of  the  term 
“  belief.”  In  the  course  of  this  argument,  we  have 
had  repeated  occasion  to  state  that  a  man’s  belief  is 
that  by  which  his  whole  life  is  governed,  —  the  foun¬ 
dation  of  his  character,  the  very  vitality  of  his  man¬ 
hood.  It  can  hardly  be  repeated  too  often,  that  belief 
is  not  a  mere  mental  assent  to  a  proposition,  but  the 
resting  and  consequent  risking  of  the  whole  life  upon 
the  truth  of  that  proposition. 

By  setting  aside,  for  the  moment,  the  term  “belief” 
on  account  of  the  narrow  theological  associations 
which  have  been  unjustly  gathered  around  it,  the 
point  may  to  some  extent  be  elucidated  by  another 
word  which  has  no  such  associations  attaching  to  it, — 
that  word  is  character.  Now,  as  we  have  found  our¬ 
selves  at  liberty,  on  the  authority  of  Christ  himself,  to 
reason  from  the  human  towards  the  divine,  let  us  in  a 
familiar  manner  try  what  can  be  done  by  an  analogi¬ 
cal  process.  Is  there  anything  in  the  constitution  of 
human  society  which  will  throw  at  least  an  edge  of 
light  around  the  awful  mystery  of  endless  punishment? 


220 


ECCF,  DEUS. 


It  will  not  be  denied,  at  the  outset,  that  there  are 
many  persons  whom  a  virtuous  man  would  not  admit 
to  his  confidence  or  hospitality.  Ask  the  reason,  and 
the  answer  will  be,  “  The  persons  have  lost  their 
good  character,  —  they  are  dissipated,  vicious,  and 
altogether  unworthy  of  respect  or  confidence..”  Here, 
then,  is  a  point  to  begin  at.  It  is  conceded  by  this 
answer  that  purity  of  character  is  the  indispensable 
qualification  for  admission  into  virtuous  society,  and 
by  so  much  it  is  shown  that  a  bad  man  is  u  damned,” 
ostracized  (or  soften  it  into  unrecognized),  solely  on 
the  ground  of  vice.  But  what  is  vice?  Is  it  not  the 
practical  side  of  belief?  The  man  believes  in  vice  as 
a  principle,  or  a  policy,  or  an  enjoyment,  and  there¬ 
fore  he  pursues  it.  But  by  pursuing  it  he  becomes 
socially  a  condemned  man  ;  he  that  believeth  not  (he 
that  is  not  virtuous)  is  damned.  It  may  be  urged  that 
a  man  may  have  many  heterodox  notions  about  religion, 
and  yet  his  social  repute  may  be  irreproachable  ;  and  on 
the  other  hand,  that  a  man’s  notions  about  religion  may 
be  orthodox,  while  his  life  is  sinful.  This  is  true,  but 
it  merely  throws  us  back  upon  a  definition  already  laid 
down,  viz.,  that  belief  is  not  intellectual,  but  moral : 
“  with  the  heart  man  believeth  unto  righteousness  ;  ” 
so  that  religion  is  not  a  question  of  mere  notions,  but 
the  expression  of  the  entire  spiritual  life.  It  would  be 
as  logical  to  contend  that  a  man  is  going  a  journey 
because  he  can  explain  the  construction  of  an  engine 
as  to  contend  that  a  man  is  going  to  heaven  because 
he  can  correctly  answer  theological  questions.  Salva¬ 
tion  turns  upon  spiritual  vitality,  and  spiritual  vitality 
is  represented  by  the  right  use  of  the  term  faith .  It 


ETERNAL  PUNISHMENTS. 


221 


must  never  be  absent  from  the  mind  that  religion  is 
not  a  set  of  opinions,  but  life  in  Jesus  Christ.  So  far, 
then,  we  find  society  doing  precisely  what  God  does, 
viz.,  drawing  a  broad  line  of  demarcation  between  the 
virtuous  and  the  vicious,  —  in  other  words,  establish¬ 
ing  a  system  of  rewards  and  punishments  based  ex¬ 
clusively  07t  inorals .  Society  has  found  this  to  be 
necessary  to  its  own  preservation  and  prosperity,  for 
all  history  has  gone  to  show  that,  apart  from  every 
theological  system,  the  moral  element  has  always  de¬ 
termined  the  true  value  of  civilization.  Virtue  has 
meant  safety  ;  vice  has  meant  danger.  This  is  a  fact 
of  immense  value  in  an  inductive  inquiry  respecting 
rewards  and  punishments. 

It  is  now  proposed  to  show  that,  in  the  matter  of 
endless  punishment  for  sin,  society  does,  in  its  degree, 
precisely  what  Almighty  God  is  declared  in  the  Chris¬ 
tian  writings  to  do.  If  God  punishes  the  finally  im¬ 
penitent  forever,  man  does  the  same  thing,  and  does 
it  necessarily  —  necessarily  because  of  the  demands 
of  the  moral  universe  without,  as  well  as  the  exactions 
of  the  moral  principle  within.  In  other  words,  the 
very  constitution  of  the  moral  universe  demands  and 
necessitates  the  endless  punishment  of  the  impenitent. 
How  we  may  work  our  way  to  this  conclusion  will 
now  appear. 

It  is  objected  that  there  is  no  proportion  between 
time  and  eternity,  and,  consequently,  that  to  punish 
man  eternally  for  doing  wrong  in  his  short  lifetime  is 
inequitable.  While  it  is  not  denied  that  punishment 
is  merited,  it  is  contended  that  there  should  be  some 
proportion  between  the  crime  and  the  penalty. 


222 


ECCE  DEUS. 


In  answer  to  this  objection,  let  us  examine  the  law 
of  proportion  in  the  light  of  social  laws.  Does  the 
idea  of  proportion  amount  roughly  to  this,  that  a  day’s 
crime  should  be  met  by  a  day’s  punishment ;  that  a 
man  who  does  wrong  to-day  should  be  punished  to¬ 
morrow,  and  restored  to  confidence  the  day  after? 
The  objector  will  probably  say,  “  No,  not  exactly  that ; 
but  say  that  a  day’s  crime  should  be  met  by  a  month’s 
punishment,  or  a  year’s  ;  only  let  there  be  some  pro¬ 
portion  between  the  crime  and  the  penalty.”  The 
answer  does  not  relieve  the  difficulty.  What  is  the 
moral  proportion  between  one  day  and  a  month,  or 
one  day  and  a  year?  Does  nothing  depend  on  the 
nature  of  the  crime?  For  example  :  a  man  commits 
a  petty  larceny  ;  would  the  objector  say  that  a  month’s 
imprisonment  would  be  enough?  Another  man,  say, 
commits  murder ;  would  the  objector  say  that  a  year’s 
punishment  would  suffice?  But  why  should  the  one 
criminal  be  punished  a  month  and  the  other  a  year? 
It  is  urged  that  the  nature  of  the  crime  determines 
that.  Let  this  be  granted ;  then  it  will  appear  that 
the  proportion  is  really  not  one  of  time,  but  of  turpi¬ 
tude.  In  reality  society  proceeds  upon  the  principle 
that  the  extent  of  time  occupied  in  the  perpetration 
of  a  criminal  act  is  not  to  be  taken  into  account  in 
considering  the  punishment  which  is  to  be  awarded. 
Nor  ought  it  to  be  accounted  of.  Less  time  may  be 
occupied  in  taking  away  a  life  than  in  committing  a 
burglary  ;  but,  on  the  principle  of  strict  proportion 
(which  sophistically  proceeds  on  the  idea  of  mere 
duration),  the  burglar  should  undergo  a  longer  pun¬ 
ishment  than  the  murderer.  But  society  will  not 


ETERNAL  PUNISHMENTS. 


223 


allow  this  ;  its  moral  instincts  overrule  its  sentimen¬ 
talities,  and  demand  that  the  gravity  of  the  crime 
should  determine  the  gravity  of  the  punishment. 

An  illustration  may  be  useful  here.  Thirty  years 
ago,  let  it  be  supposed,  a  criminal  forged  the  reader’s 
name  to  a  check  for  a  thousand  guineas.  He  did  it 
in  a  few  moments ;  a  stroke  or  two  of  the  skilled  pen, 
and  the  deed  was  done.  The  criminal  never  confessed 
the  act ;  never  uttered  a  penitential  word  ;  he  suffered 
imprisonment  for  ten  years  ;  and  now  for  twenty  years 
he  has  been  at  large.  Has  the  reader  forgiven  him? 
Has  he  restored  him  to  confidence?  Has  he  invited 
the  offender  into  his  family  circle?  Has  he  replaced 
him  at  the  commercial  desk?  The  reader  says,  “  No.” 
But  what  becomes  of  the  argument  of  proportion? 
Let  it  be  remembered  that  the  criminal  was  impris¬ 
oned  ten  years  for  a  crime  committed  in  less  than  ten 
minutes.  Was  not  the  punishment  sufficient?  Think 
of  ten  minutes  being  multiplied  into  ten  years,  and 
then  say  whether  more  can  be  reasonably  demanded. 
But  it  may  be  urged  that  the  criminal  is  impenitent ; 
he  never  owns  his  sin,  never  asks  forgiveness,  and 
treats  the  injured  man  as  if  he  himself  had  been 
injured.  The.  injured  man  is  so  far  philanthropic  as 
to  say  that  he  will  meet  the  criminal  on  the  first  sign 
of  contrition  —  he  only  waits  an  acknowledgment  of 
the  guilt  and  promise  of  better  behavior.  Nothing 
can  be  more  humane,  —  nothing  more  reasonable ; 
and  the  point  to  be  specially  remarked  is,  that  this  is 
the  very  principle  upon  which  the  divine  government 
in  relation  to  sin  proceeds :  u  If  we  confess  our  sins, 
he  is  faithful  and  just  to  forgive  us  our  sins.”'  Man’s 


224 


ECCE  DEUS. 


own  heart  being  witness,  he  proceeds  upon  the  very 
principle  of  adjudication  which  he  condemns  in  the 
government  of  God. 

The  sum  of  the  answer  is  this :  if  a  criminal  con¬ 
tinue  to  be  impenitent  respecting  any  crime,  he  is  as 
guilty  of  that  crime  on  the  last  day  of  his  life  as  he 
was  in  the  very  hour  of  its  committal,  though  he  may 
have  survived  that  hour  fifty  years.  Time  has  no  miti¬ 
gating  influence  upon  guilt.  The  question  between 
the  criminal  and  society  is  not  one  of  time ,  but  of 
fenitence ,  and,  so  long  as  he  is  impenitent,  society 
must,  by  a  compulsion  deeper  than  all  formal  law, 
mark  and  avoid  him.  Society  does  this.  If  particular 
members  of  society  do  not  do  so,  they  are  immoral  — 
connivance  with  unrepented  guilt  being  an  affront  to 
the  spirit  of  virtue.  Society  punishes  (more  or  less 
lightly,  more  or  less  directly)  all  impenitent  offenders 
against  its  laws,  and  punishes  them  throughout  their 
whole  lifetime ,  which  is  as  much  of  eternity  as  its 
retributive  influence  can  encompass.  In  very  grave 
cases,  indeed,  society  will  not  allow  the  penal  shadow 
to  pass  from  the  reputation  even  after  death  ;  so  truly 
is  this  the  case  that  there  are  names  which  cannot  now 
be  pronounced,  though  they  represent  long  extinct 
lives,  without  bringing  a  frown  upon  the  countenances 
of  all  wrho  hear  them.  Is  this  eternal  punishment,  or 
is  it  not? 

The  question  of  proportion  may  be  looked  at  in 
another  light.  A  citizen  who  has  maintained  a  good 
reputation  for  half  a  century  as  a  pure,  upright,  noble 
man  ;  who  has  figured  on  subscription  lists  as  a  gen¬ 
erous  benefactor  of  the  poor ;  whose  name  obtained 


ETERNAL  PUNISHMENTS. 


225 


the  highest  credit  on  the  Exchange,  —  has  been  proved 
guilty  of  a  crime :  the  crime  was  being  perpetrated  in 
imagined  secrecy  ;  the  criminal  had  no  idea  that  any 
eye  was  upon  him  ;  the  fact,  however,  becomes  known  ; 
and  the  question  is,  how  does  society  .reat  the  tower 
which  was  fifty  years  in  building?  Society  razes  the 
very  foundations,  and  forgets  half  a  century  of  un¬ 
challenged  life  in  one  day’s  discovered  villany.  But 
where  is  the  law  of  proportion?  Why  not  deduct  one 
day  from  the  fifty  years’  reputation,  or  regard  the  crime 
but  as  a  spot  on  the  disk  of  a  brilliant  life?  The  law 
of  proportion  founded  on  mere  duration  would,  if 
strictly  interpreted,  require  this  deduction  ;  but  society 
happily  forgets  its  formal  logic  when  under  the  influ¬ 
ence  of  high  moral  inspiration,  and  in  its  own  arbitra¬ 
ments  reproduces  the  government  of  God. 

The  argument  of  proportion  as  to  time  is  obviously 
fallacious.  No  crime  is  self-contained.  All  actions 
are  influential.  What  is  done  in  an  hour  may  affect 
society  through  many  generations.  Long  after  the 
pebble  is  at  the  bottom  of  the  lake,  the  circles  multiply 
and  expand  on  the  surface.  The  lifting  of  a  hand 
sends  a  vibration  to  the  stars. 

A  second  objection  will  afford  an  opportunity  of 
still  further  exposing  the  fallacy  of  the  argument  of 
proportion.  It  has  been  urged  that,  as  virtue  is  its 
own  reward,  and  vice  its  own  punishment,  the  crimi¬ 
nal  is  sufficiently  punished  while  upon  earth,  and  need 
not,  therefore,  have  hell  superadded.  The  argument, 
if  valid  in  relation  to  hell,  is  equally  valid  in  relation 
to  heaven  ;  hence,  as  virtue  is  its  own  reward,  the 
virtuous  man  is  sufficiently  rewarded  on  earth,  and 


226 


ECCE  DEUS. 


needs  not  a  superadded  heaven.  By  parity  of  reason¬ 
ing  this  latter  position  is  impregnable.  The  logic 
which  closes  hell  annihilates  heaven.  Without,  how¬ 
ever,  pressing  the  sophist  too  severely  to  accept  the 
results  of  his  premises,  the  whole  answer  may  be  in¬ 
cluded  in  one  fundamental  and  fully-illustrated  prin¬ 
ciple —  viz.,  that  punishment  is  not  regenerative. 
All  penalty  is  negative.  It  may  appease  the  more 
public  demands  of  society  without  making  any  good 
impression  on  the  moral  nature  of  the  criminal.  Take 
an  instance :  a  felon  who  has  undergone  a  term  of 
imprisonment  may  leave  the  prison  as  great  a  criminal 
as  he  entered  it.  The  mere  fact  of  having  been  in 
jail  for  a  series  of  months  or  years  does  not  make 
the  criminal  an  honest  man.  The  law  could  touch 
his  body  only ;  so  that  at  the  very  moment  of  his 
keenest  smarting  under  the  penal  rod  he  might  be 
plotting  deeper  schemes  of  crime.  Punishment  per 
se  is  not  a  regenerator.  Hell  itself,  if  intermediate 
instead  of  final,  could  not  convert  men  to  Christianity. 
It  might  terrify  them ;  it  might  impose  strong  re¬ 
straints  upon  them,  originating  in  the  lowest  and  most 
uncertain  motives ;  but,  as  to  regeneration,  it  might 
be  as  impotent  as  a  passing  storm.  Virtue  founded 
on  fear  is  only  vice  in  a  fit  of  dejection. 

Does  not  the  objector  himself  proceed  upon  the 
principle  that  punishment  is  not  regenerative? 
Imagine  the  objector  seated  in  a  public  vehicle.  He 
is  holding  pleasant  intercourse  with  a  fellow-traveller  ; 
he  likes  the  man,  is  pleased  with  his  intelligence, 
frankness,  and  civility :  at  one  point  of  the  journey, 
however,  he  is  given  to  understand  that  his  interlocutor 


ETERNAL  PUNISHMENTS. 


is  a  ticket-of-leave  man  ;  does  he  during  the  remainder 
of  the  journey  feel  as  comfortable  as  he  did  at  the 
beginning?  Does  he,  or  does  he  not,  involuntarily 
lay  his  hand  upon  his  property?  Is  there,  or  is  there 
not,  a  development  of  suspicion?  But  why:  The 
criminal  has,  indeed,  broken  the  laws  of  his  country, 
but  he  has  suffered  the  legal  penalty,  or  escaped  a 
portion  of  it  by  his  creditable  conduct ;  why,  then, 
should  not  the  objector  invite  the  well-behaved  con¬ 
vict  home,  and  introduce  him  to  the  confidence  of 
his  sons  and  daughters  ?  Why  should  the  convict  be 
punished  forever?  Where  is  the  proportion  between 
a  day’s  crime  and  life-long  infamy?  The  objector’s 
philosophy  succumbs  to  his  moral  instincts.  He  be¬ 
gins  to  think  of  contamination,  and  mentally  to  run 
over  all  the  possibilities  of  his  having  had  something 
like  friendly  intercourse  with  a  returned  convict.  Yet 
he  would  have  God’s  infinite  holiness  do  what  his  own 
faded  morality  cannot  do.  He  would  have  the  sun 
overlook  defects  which  his  own  rushlight  brings  into 
startling  prominence.  He  fails  to  see  that  the  case 
appeals  not  to  benevolence,  not  to  philosophy,  but 
strictly  to  the  moral  sense ;  and  if. man,  whose  moral 
faculty  is  so  liable  to  perversion,  recoils  from  the  idea 
of  confiding  in  an  impenitent  convict,  how  can  God 
look  with  complaisance  on  an  unclean  heart?  Does 
the  objector  say  that,  if  he  knew  the  returned  convict 
to  be  a  truly  penitent  man,  he  would  give  him  another 
chance  in  life?  Then  let  him  recall  the  words  just 
quoted  —  u  If  we  confess  our  sins,  he  is  faithful  and 
just  to  forgive  us  our  sins.” 

The  objector  seems  forgetful  of  the  fact,  that  the 


ECCE  DEUS. 


22S 

doctrine  of  vice  being  its  own  punishment  is  neces¬ 
sarily  overridden  in  all  the  penal  arrangements  of 
society,  otherwise  society  would  be  insecurely  guarded 
against  outrage.  If  vice  be  its  own  punishment  (not 
only  individually,  but  socially ,  in  a  full  degree),  why 
should  the  thief  be  imprisoned  or  the  murderer  exe¬ 
cuted?  Why  not  leave  each  to  the  tormenting  remorse 
of  his  own  conscience?  Why  not  be  satisfied  with  the 
scorpion  sting  of  memory?  The  fact  is,  that  there  is 
a  practical  sophism  in  the  doctrine  that  vice  is  its  own 
punishment  in  an  imperfect  state  of  society.  By  repe¬ 
tition  of  crime  conscience  is  hardened,  so  that  actually 
he  who  has  done  most  is  punished  least.  The  young 
thief,  trembling  in  inexperience,  hesitates  as  he  ap¬ 
proaches  the  lock  at  midnight,  but  the  veteran  burglar 
is  as  steady  in  darkness  as  at  noonday.  The  criminal, 
therefore,  would  have  merely  to  repeat  his  crimes  to 
escape  their  punishment ;  for  he  who  now  blushes  in 
anger  may  one  day  be  calm  in  murder !  Vice  is  its 
own  punishment  only  when  all  alleviating  circum¬ 
stances  are  removed,  as  will  be  the  case  in  the  next 
world.  There  nature  will  be  so  quickened,  and  so 
thoroughly  thrown  back  upon  'itself,  that  vice  will  in 
the  fullest  sense  of  the  term  be  its  own  tormentor  ;  but, 
as  earthly  society  is  now  constituted,  there  would  be  so 
many  counterbalancing  influences  brought  to  bear  upon 
the  criminal  that  his  reflections  might  be  modified  or 
entirely  overpowered.  The  same  principle  has  its 
obvious  bearings  on  the  doctrine  that  virtue  is  its  own 
reward. 

A  third  objection  urges  that  God  should  issue  a 
universal  amnesty, — open  every  prison  door  in  the 


ETERNAL  PUNISHMENTS. 


229 


universe,  —  say  to  devils,  “  You  are  forgiven,”  and  to 
lost  men,  u  Be  free.”  This  would  be  considered  so 
magnanimous  as  to  be  worthy  of  God.  The  objection 
is  not  without  plausibility.  Two  things,  however, 
appear  to  be  forgotten.  (1)  That  an  amnesty  could 
not,  in  itself,  work  any  moral  change.  Look  at  the 
case  from  a  national  point  of  view.  Suppose  that  the 
monarch  were  to  proclaim  a  universal  amnesty  :  would 
the  thief,  the  murderer,  the  incendiary,  or  any  other 
criminal,  be  thereby  constituted  a  virtuous  member  of 
society?  Such  an  amnesty,  instead  of  being  a  bless¬ 
ing,  would  be  a  curse  ;  liberty  would  degenerate  into 
licentiousness.  If  the  insane  idea  of  a  universal  am¬ 
nesty  were  seriously  proposed,  all  virtuous  men  would 
protest  against  throwing  back  the  flood-gates  and  lib¬ 
erating  torrents  of  crime.  What,  then,  would  God’s 
amnesty  do?  Would  a  demon  be  less  a  demon  on  one 
side  of  a  prison  door  than  on  another?  Does  the  door 
make  the  demon?  The  second  thing  that  is  forgotten 
by  the  objector  is,  (2)  That  forgiveness  requires  the 
consent  of  two  parties.  The  term  “forgiveness”  is 
often  used  with  a  most  inadequate  conception  of  its 
meaning.  An  enemy  cannot  by  any  act  of  so-called 
forgiveness  be  turned  into  a  friend.  The  philanthropic 
man  may  even  love  his  enemies,  bless  them  that  curse 
him,  and  pray  for  them  that  despitefully  use  him  and 
persecute  him,  and  yet  not  forgive  them  in  the  right 
sense  of  that  term.  The  man  may  excuse  an  offence 
against  himself,  but  he  has  no  power  to  excuse  an 
offence  against  righteousness ;  that  is  to  say,  he  may 
rise  superior  to  the  mere  personal  consideration,  and 
no  doubt  will  do  so  ;  but,  if  he  trifle  with  the  demands 


23° 


ECCE  DEUS. 


of  morality,  which  alone  can  make  personal  considera¬ 
tions  of  any  consequence,  his  so-called  forgiveness  is  a 
sin,  and  his  supposed  magnanimity  is  a  violation  of 
God’s  prerogative.  It  comes  to  this,  then,  that  even 
God  himself  cannot  forgive  a  sinner  apart  from  certain 
conditions,  which  the  sinner  himself  must  supply.  Is 
it  (if  the  supposition  may  be  allowed)  anything  merely 
personal  which  God  condemns  in  the  action  of  the 
sinner  against  himself?  Can  the  sinner  do  God  any 
harm?  Can  the  mightiest  chief  in  all  the  armies  of 
hell  pluck  one  star  from  the  sky,  or  keep  back  the  light 
of  the  sun,  or  bind  the  sweet  influences  of  Pleiades, 
or  loose  the  bands  of  Orion?  God  is  not,  so  to  speak, 
alarmed  for  his  personal  government.  The  offences 
against  his  power  cost  him  no  concern,  but  the  offences 
against  his  holiness  afflict  him  with  great  sorrow 
The  parent  cares  nothing  for  the  mere  blow  of  the 
child’s  tiny  flst,  but  the  passion  which  prompted  it 
breaks  his  heart.  God  has  to  maintain  the  public 
virtue  and  order  of  the  universe.  He  fears  no  stroke 
of  power ;  but  if,  for  mere  convenience  of  expression, 
we  may  distinguish  between  his  personality  and  his 
attributes,  we  may  say  that  offences  against  his  person 
are  forgiven,  but  offences  against  his  attributes  cannot 
be  forgiven  apart  from  confession  and  repentance  on 
the  side  of  the  criminal. 

It  has  been  suggested  that  annihilation  would  better 
harmonize  with  the  divine  attributes  than  the  infliction 
of  eternal  misery.  This,  however,  is  a  sentiment 
rather  than  an  argument.  God  does  not  inflict  the 
eternal  misery ;  he  simply  points  it  out  as  the  resultant 
of  certain  courses.  Men  often  complain  as  if  the 


ETERNAL  PUNISHMENTS. 


23I 


misery  were  superimposed  by  God  :  it  is  not ;  it  comes 
out  of  the  man,  not  from  God.  God  says  to  his  moral 
creatures,  “You  are  immortal:  right  means  immortal 
glory  :  wrong  means  immortal  infamy.”  In  this  rep¬ 
resentation  on  the  part  of  God  there  is  nothing  arbi¬ 
trary —  it  simply  points  out  the  inevitable  operation  of 
cause  and  effect.  When  a  parent  warns  a  child  to 
beware  of  the  fire,  he  does  so  in  love,  not  in  anger : 
he  does  not  inflict  the  pain  of  burning ;  he  merely 
points  out  that  such  pain  will  be  the  result  of  diso¬ 
bedience.  So  with  God  :  he  does  not  inflict  the  pun¬ 
ishment  ;  the  punishment  is  the  effect  of  a  cause.  It 
is  easy  to  pronounce  the  word  annihilation ,  but  has 
its  meaning  been  fully  considered?  There  need  not  be 
any  hesitation  in  reverently  declaring  that  God  cannot 
anjiihilate  a  moral  agent.  If  he  could,  would  he  not  \  r  ,  ' 
have  annihilated  the  devil  that  vexed  his  beloved  Son  in*w  . 
the  wilderness  ?  So  far  as  we  can  gather  from  the  sacred 
writings,  what  has  been  the  attitude  of  God  in  relation 
to  the  devil?  He  has  degraded  his  position  in  the 
universe  ;  he  has  taken  away  the  lustrous  robe  with 
which  he  was  originally  clothed  ;  he  has  caused  him 
to  wither  into  the  most  awful  and  repulsive  deformity  ; 
on  every  side  the  most  tremendous  pressure  has  been 
brought  to  bear  upon  him  ;  but  no  force  can  touch  the 
life;  diabolism  is  nothing  but  abused  divinity,  and  can 
God  be  annihilated?  All  moral  creatures  are  such  by 
virtue  of  a  divine  element  in  their  nature.  But  cannot 
God  withdraw  that  divine  element?  Let  us  pause. 

What  would  he  make  of  it  after  he  had  withdrawn  it? 

Could  he  absorb  the  poisoned  element  which  for  a  life¬ 
time  had  been  given  up  to  the  devil? 


ECCE  DEUS. 


232 

It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  there  is  a  broad  dis* 
tinction  between  a  penalty  and  a  consequence,  as  those 
terms  are  commonly  understood.  When  Christ  said, 
“  Pie  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned,”  he  announced 
a  consequence,  he  did  not  threaten  a  penalty  in  the 
usual  acceptation  of  the  term.  A  consequence  is  the 
direct  and  inevitable  result  of  certain  processes,  par¬ 
taking  of  their  very  nature,  and  inseparable  from 
them  ;  but  a  penalty  may  possibly  be  something  dif¬ 
ferent,  something  arbitrarily  superadded,  regardless  of 
adaptation  or  measure.  Being  chilled  is  a  consequence 
of  exposure  to  cold  air ;  but  being  flogged  for  such 
exposure  is  a  penalty.  Eternal  punishment  is  the  con¬ 
sequence  of  rejecting  the  Gospel,  not  a  penalty  (in  the 
low  sense  of  revenge)  attached  to  a  crime. 

In  the  Phcedo,  and  also  in  the  Gorgias,  we  find  a 
theory  which  seems  to  meet  some  of  the  difficulties, 
but  which  in  reality  meets  some  at  the  expense  of 
others.  It  appears,  according  to  the  Platonic  dream, 
that  persons  who  have  passed  through  life  without 
bringing  any  special  disgrace  upon  themselves  suffer 
for  their  evil  deeds,  and  are  then  rewarded  for  their 
good  works.  On  the  other  hand,  those  who  are  in¬ 
curable  are  cast  into  Tartarus,  where  they  remain 
forever.  The  class  lying  between  receive  different 
treatment.  In  the  first  instance,  they  are  cast  into 
Tartarus ;  but,  after  remaining  there  a  year,  they  are 
cast  forth,  the  homicides  into  Cocytus,  the  parricides 
and  matricides  into  Pyriphlegethon.  With  a  most 
singular  accuracy,  the  very  principle  of  confession 
being  the  basis  of  pardon,  and  the  consent  of  two 
parties  being  required  in  order  to  an  act  of  complete 


ETERNAL  PUNISHMENTS. 


233 


forgiveness,  it  is  declared  in  the  Phcedo,  that  when  the 
members  of  this  intermediate  class  are  borne  along  to 
the  Acherusian  lake,  they  invoke  those  whom  they 
murdered  or  injured  ;  and,  if  the  aggrieved  parties 
relent,  the  sufferers  are  permitted  to  go  out  into  the 
lake,  and  thus  to  escape  further  suffering ;  but,  if  the 
aggrieved  parties  do  not  relent,  the  sufferers  are  re¬ 
manded  to  Tartarus.  The  same  doctrine  is  taught  in 
the  Gorgias.  Rhadamanthus  examines  the  souls,  with¬ 
out  knowing  anything  of  their  identity,  and  according 
to  their  nature  he  dismisses  them  either  to  Tartarus  or 
to  the  isles  of  the  blessed.  The  points  common  to  the 
Platonic  and  Evangelic  theories  are  (1)  that  there  are 
two  conditions  after  death,  and  (2)  that  eternal  pun¬ 
ishment  is  the  consequence  of  unpardoned  guilt.  In 
the  “  beautiful  fable  ”  related  by  Socrates  in  the  Phaedo, 
we  have  the  principle  of  a  purgatory  affirmed  ;  that  is 
to  say,  some  sinners  are  punished  for  a  time  and  then 
sent  forward  to  everlasting  rewards.  The  Christian 
doctrine  is  opposed  to  this ;  it  knows  nothing  of  inter¬ 
mediate  distinctions ;  its  classification  is  dual ;  in 
referring  to  destiny,  it  recognizes  two  terms  only,  — 
heaven  and  hell. 

The  moral  effect  is  higher  than  that  of  the  Socratic 
fable.  No  license  is  given  to  the  criminal ;  no  un¬ 
certainty  beclouds  the  anticipations  of  the  good  man. 
Virtue  is  recognized  as  a  principle,  not  judged  by 
deceptive  shades.  Socrates,  in  concluding  his  fable, 
well  said  that  it  would  not  become  any  man  of  sense 
to  affirm  positively  that  the  things,  were  exactly  as  the 
fabulist  had  pictured  them.  But  Christ  makes  no 
such  reservations ;  he  speaks  with  the  authority  of  onv 


234 


ECCE  DEUS. 

before  whose  eyes  all  things  stood  in  the  clearest 
light :  it  is  a  revealer,  not  an  inquirer,  who  sees  that 
the  bad  man  cannot  rise  and  the  good  man  cannot  fall 
in  the  day  of  judgment.  Why  be  startled  by  the 
announcement  that  the  bad  man  shall  u  go  away  into 
everlasting  punishment”?  Society  has  actually  af¬ 
firmed  the  principle  in  its  own  penal  arrangements  ; 
why,  then,  be  shocked  at  its  own  moral  instincts? 
The  shock  is  occasioned  by  the  word  “eternal”  rather 
than  the  word  “punishment;”  yet  why  so?  If  re¬ 
morse  can  be  endured  at  all,  why  not  forever? 
Beings  can  suffer  only  according  to  their  capacity. 
The  suffering  will  be  mental,  not  physical,  —  an 
eternal  self-reproach  for  having  given  God  the  lie. 

This  gives  us  a  view  of  the  redemptive  work  of 
Christ  which  could  not  have  been  otherwise  obtained. 
It  presents,  too,  an  impressive  aspect  of  human  digni¬ 
ty.  To  save  man  from  such  Consequences,  Christ 
undertook  the  work  of  mediation,  —  would  Christ 
have  died  to  save  an  insect  which  could  be  crushed 
into  nothingness?  According  to  the  Christian  writ¬ 
ings,  man  stands  in  a  salvable  relation  to  Christ’s 
work  only  during  his  continuance  on  earth  ;  through¬ 
out  the  whole  of  that  period  he  is  importuned  by  the 
most  earnest  persuasions  to  avail  himself  of  the 
benefits  of  Christ’s  mediation ;  and  if,  in  defiance 
of  all  such  importunity,  he  determinedly  persists  in 
a  criminal  course,  how  can  he  possibly  escape  the 
effects  of  that  course?  The  question  is,  how  can  he? 
If  punishment  is  not  regenerative  ;  if  selfish  fear  is  not 
a  moral  agent ;  if  a  moral  creature  cannot  be  an¬ 
nihilated; —  then  how  can  the  criminal  cheat  God, 


ETERNAL  PUNISHMENTS. 


235 


and  find  a  way  into  heaven?  Is  it  suggested  that  a 
second  probation  might  meet  the  case?  A  second 
probation  is  an  impossibility  ;  but  even  assuming  the 
possibility,  where  would  be  the  equity?  Give  men 
to  know  that  there  would  be  a  second  probation,  and 
how  many  of  them  would  care  for  the  first?  And  if 
they  neglect  the  first,  they  are  so  much  weaker  in 
moral  nerve  to  encounter  the  discipline  of  the  second 
And  if  there  should  be  two  probations,  why  not 
three  ? 

“  But  say  I  could  repent,  and  could  obtain 
By  act  of  grace  my  former  state ;  how  soon 
Would  height  recall  high  thoughts,  how  soon  unsay 
What  feigned  submission  swore !  ease  would  recant 
Vows  made  in  pain,  as  violent  and  void.” 

How  do  men  regard  this  probationary  idea  as  y 
comes  up  in  the  concerns  of  daily  life?  There  is  rriw 
seed-time  in  the  year ;  an  indolent  farmer  neglects  it, 
and  then  sets  up  the  theory  that  to  have  only  an 
annual  seed-time  is  ridiculous !  When  poverty  comes 
as  u  an  armed  man,”  does  society  pity  or  reproacn 
him?  It  may  be  suggested  that  possibly  the  suffer¬ 
ings  might  have  a  good  effect  upon  the  lost ;  it  might 
cause  them  to  reflect ;  it  might  bring  them  to  repent¬ 
ance.  It  is  forgotten,  however,  that  everything  has 
been  done  for  them  which  even  God  could  do  :  they 
have  resisted  the  whole  system  of  redeeming  love ; 
thrust  away  the  bleeding  and  dying  Christ ;  and,  if 
mere  suffering  will  save  any  man,  God  has  made 
a  stupendous  mistake  in  sending  his  Son  to  Save 
sinners.  Hell  would  then  be  more  successful  chan 
the  Son  of  God. 


236 


ECCE  DEUS. 


In  the  most  appalling  of  his  parables  Christ  repre¬ 
sents  a  rich  man  as  lifting  up  his  eyes  in  hell,  being  in 
torment.  Parables  are  not  always  to  be  pressed  into 
literal  evidence,  but  this  parable  is  absolutely  point¬ 
less  if  it  does  not  teach  (1)  that  there  is  a  hell,  and 
(2)  that  those  who  are  in  hell  are  conscious  of  their 
position.  This  parable  contains  an  incidental  con¬ 
firmation  of  Christ’s  picture  of  the  judgment.  The 
rich  man  neglected  Lazarus,  —  that  is  the  principal 
fact  we  know  respecting  his  outside  relations :  the 
next  thing  heard  of  him  is,  that  he  is  “  in  hell.”  So 
in  the  judgment  the  goats  go  away  into  everlasting 
punishment  because  they  have  neglected  the  hungry, 
the  thirsty,  and  the  sick,  —  that  is  positively  the  only 
charge  brought  against  them.  But  what  are  the 
terms  of  the  preaching  commission?  Not  he  that 
is  philanthropic ,  but — u  He  that  believeth  shall  be 
saved.”  Are  the  terms,  then,  altered?  The  altera¬ 
tion  is  nominal,  not  essential.  No  man  can  believe 
without  being  a  philanthropist ;  no  man  can  be  a 
philanthropist  without  believing,  —  that  is,  without 
going  out  of  himself,  resting  on  something  better  than 
the  pivot  of  individualism.  Philanthropy  is  the  man- 
ward  aspect  of  faith  in  Christ.  “  Pure  religion  and 
undefiled  before  God  and  the  Father  is  this,  To  visit 
the  fatherless  and  widows  in  their  affliction,  and  to 
keep  himself  unspotted  from  the  world.”  The  basis 
of  arbitrament,  then,  is  not  changed,  but  an  enlarged 
conception  of  faith  is  given,  and  by  so  much  is  dis¬ 
closed  a  fuller  view  of  the  enormity  which  brings  upon 
itself  “  everlasting  punishment ;  ”  for  it  appears  by  this 
definition  of  faith  (a  point  often  overlooked  in  the  dis- 


ETERNAL  PUNISHMENTS. 


2  37 


cussion  of  the  subject),  that  the  criminal  outrages  alike 
theology  and  humanity,  —  God  and  man.  Those  who 
“  go  away  into  everlasting  punishment”  are  expressly 
said  to  have  neglected  their  fellow-creatures ;  they 
are  condemned  on  human  grounds,  —  not  because 
they  had  an  heretical  creed,  but  because  they  had  no 
love  towards  man ,  — u  and  if  a  man  love  not  his 
brother  whom  he  hath  seen,  how  can  he  love  God 
whom  he  hath  not  seen?  ”  Misanthropy  alone  neces¬ 
sitates  hell. 

So  much  for  an  outline  of  argument.  We  are  not 
unaware  of  the  pleadings  of  mere  sentiment.  All 
good  men  would  unite  in  the  expression  of  generous 
hopes  were  they  at  liberty  to  deal  with  the  sentimental¬ 
ism  of  the  subject ;  but,  as  all  the  arrangements  of 
society  show,  the  moral  instincts  of  the  world  protest 
against  a  forgiveness  of  the  criminal  apart  from  suf¬ 
fering  and  contrition.  If  temporary  punishment  in 
hell  will  bring  men  to  God,  why  send  Jesus  Christ  to 
die  a  sacrificial  death,  or  any  death  at  all?  Why  not 
put  all  men  into  hell  at  once,  and  save  by  fear  those 
who  refuse  to  be  saved  by  love?  Is  it  because  we 
have  pleasure  in  contemplating  the  suffering  of  crimi¬ 
nals  that  we  have  spoken  thus  urgently  of  future 
punishments?  We  know  that  we  subject  ourselves  to 
such  a  taunt ;  it  may  be,  however,  that  a  frank  state¬ 
ment  on  the  affirmative  side  of  the  question  may  be 
conceived  in  a  more  delicate  and  tremulous  tender¬ 
ness  than  the  utterance  of  vapid  generalities  of  hope. 
We  are  bound  to  point  out  that  nowhere  in  the 
sacred  writings  is  hell  referred  to  as  exerting  a 
remedial  influence  on  the  criminal ;  if  it  does  exert 


23S 


ECCE  DEUS. 


such  an  influence,  it  was  an  inexcusable  oversight  not 
to  dwell  upon  the  fact  specifically.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  distinctly  taught  by  Jesus  Christ,  that,  if 
men  will  not  avail  themselves  of  such  moral  advan¬ 
tages  as  are  at  their  disposal,  they  would  not  “  be 
persuaded  though  one  rose  from  the  dead.”  Men 
are  apt  to  think  that  something  which  has  not  been 
tried,  specially  something  startling  and  sensational, 
would  succeed  in  saving  the  obstinate.  Are  they 
wiser  than  God,  or  tenderer  than  Christ?  Others, 
again,  refer  to  the  heathen,  and  to  those  within  our 
own  civilization  who  have  never  heard  the  Gospel, 
and  they  ask,  “Are  such  to  be  eternally  punished?” 
This  horror  is  uninformed  and  unreasoning.  No  man 
will  be  condemned  for  not  believing  what  he  never 
heard.  It  is  the  man  who  believeth  not  that  is  to  be 
condemned,  and  the  very  terms  imply  that  the  case 
has  been  laid  before  him.  As  for  others,  they  are  in 
the  hands  of  God,  and  will  be  adjudged  righteously. 
“  It  is  better  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  God  than  into 
the  hands  of  men.”  Why  preach  the  Gospel  at  all 
then?  some  may  say.  The  answer  is,  (1)  Christ  com¬ 
manded  it  to  be  preached,  and  (2)  the  very  nature  of 
the  Gospel  demands  proclamation  ;  the  truth  will  not 
be  silent.  The  appeal  which  most  concerns  us  is 
addressed  immediately  to  those  who  have  heard  the 
Gospel,  seen  Christ  in  his  word  and  works,  and  had 
an  opportunity  of  accepting  eternal  life.  If  men  have 
insulted  God,  poured  contempt  upon  his  Son,  counted 
the  blood  of  the  covenant  as  an  unworthy  thing,  grieved 
and  quenched  the  Holy  Spirit,  what  can  possibly 
remain  of  a  remedial  kind?  The  inquiry  is  one  on 


ETERNAL  PUNISHMENTS. 


239 


which  reason  may  expend  its  powers.  What  remains 
after  God  has  been  exhausted?  Those  who  plead 
against  eternal  punishment  often  talk  as  though  no 
mercy  had  been  shown  to  the  sinner  ;  as  if  mercy  were 
an  orb  reserved  to  shine  upon  the  uttermost  darkness 
to  show  the  way  to  heaven.  Such  a  suggestion  is  a 
grave  reflection  upon  the  plan  of  salvation  ;  it  plainly, 
though  indirectly,  charges  that  plan  with  incomplete¬ 
ness,  and  violently  enlarges  the  period  of  human  pro¬ 
bation.  As  if  God’s  mercy  were  less  than  man’s  pity  ! 
We  attempt  not  to  read  the  unpublished  decrees  of 
God  ;  in  our  present  sphere,  with  our  present  means 
of  judging,  reason  itself  binds  us  to  accept  the  con¬ 
clusions  of  consciousness  and  revelation  in  preference 
to  the  plausibilities  of  mere  sentiment. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 


THE  CROSS  OF  CHRIST. 

THE  Cross  is  the  culmination  of  the  mystery.  It 
is  now  proposed  to  view  it  not  so  much  in  its 
place  in  systematic  theology  as  in  its  relation  to  Christ’s 
personal  history.  Pilate’s  superscription  is  easily  read, 
but  there  is  another  writing  more  difficult  of  interpre¬ 
tation.  The  one  word  which  we  have  succeeded  in 
deciphering  is  love ,  and  we  have  ventured  on  the  not 
improbable  inference  that  such  a  word  must  have  kin¬ 
dred  words  around  it. 

The  death,  and  its  attendant  circumstances,  was  not 
an  unexpected  event  to  Jesus  Christ,  —  it  was  preceded 
by  many  demonstrations  of  ill-regulated  excitement  on 
the  part  of  the  people,  plainly  showing  unsteadiness 
of  aim  on  their  side  ;  but  the  heart  of  Jesus  Christ  was 
fixed  by  a  great  design.  He  had  been  living  the  kind 
of  life  which,  viewed  from  the  outside,  seemed  inevita¬ 
bly  to  lead  to  a  violent  death  ;  yet  his  control  of  the 
element  of  time  in  the  completion  of  his  purposes  is 
most  significant.  The  baffled  revolutionist,  whose 
schemes  have  overweighted  his  resources,  has  no  power 
over  the  apportionment  of  his  time  ;  but  Jesus  Christ 
spoke  of  his  “hour”  with  the  precision  and  calmness 
of  conscious  mastery.  It  seemed  as  though  he  would 
not  allow  history  to  be  made  immaturely,  —  as  if  there 


THE  CROSS  OF  CHRIST. 


24I 


was  a  law  by  which  events  come  to  a  crisis,  and  which 
could  not  be  accelerated  by  the  wildest  impatience  or 
the  most  violent  determination.  Early  in  public  life 
he  began  to  talk  of  his  u  hour ;  ”  repeatedly  he  said 
that  his  hour  was  u  not  yet ;  ”  and  not  until  he  offered 
his  intercessory  prayer,  which  escaped  from  his  break¬ 
ing  heart  like  a  long  sigh  of  sorrowing  love,  did  he 
plainly  say,  “  The  hour  is  come.”  There  were  two 
forces  in  operation  ;  the  force  of  a  malign  intent  on  the 
part  of  the  Jews,  and  the  force  of  a  control  which 
times  all  events  to  a  moment.  Passions  cannot  hasten 
the  time  of  heaven.  Every  hour  has  its  work,  and 
every  work  its  hour.  There  was  no  reader  of  the 
signs  of  the  times  so  quick  and  so  correct  as  Jesus 
Christ.  He  saw  the  fields  “white  unto  the  harvest” 
sooner  than  his  nearest  followers  did  ;  and  while  super¬ 
ficial  men  were  reading  the  skies  he  chided  them  for 
dulness  in  reading  the  more  important  tokens  of  the 
world’s  condition.  All  this  is  in  harmony  with  his 
anticipation  of  his  “  hour.”  He  knew  the  laws  which 
regulate  the  tides  ;  he  was  not  misled  by  the  foam  with 
which  the  winds  bespattered  him  ;  he  knew  that  not 
the  winds  but  the  worlds  touch  the  tidal  springs.  Pie 
foresaw  the  last  swell  of  the  great  deep,  and  encoun¬ 
tered  it  in  an  attitude  of  prayer. 

This  anticipation  of  his  “hour”  is  noticeable  as  a 
side-illustration  of  the  purpose  which  ran  through  the 
life  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  cross  was  not  ,an  accident. 
The  cross  was  not  an  after-thought ;  its  shadow  came 
up  from  eternity,  and  was  first  visible  to  men  in  the 
manger  of  Bethlehem.  The  most  cursory  view  of  the 
powers  which  he  wielded  during  his  life  is  sufficient 

11 


242 


ECCE  DEUS. 


to  show  that  Jesus  Christ  was  perfectly  able  to  repel 
the  ruffians  who  undertook  to  compass  his  death.  He 
was  no  weakened  Samson  who  had  given  up  the  secret 
of  his  power ;  he  was  still  the  wonderful  man  whom 
the  winds  and  the  sea  obeyed  ;  yet  he  consented  to  be 
led  as  a  lamb  to  the  slaughter,  and  as  a  sheep  before 
her  shearers  is  dumb,  so  he  opened  not  his  mouth, 
lie  had  been  accustomed  to  the  idea  from  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world.  Even  in  his  earthly  course 
he  was  never  separated  from  the  cross ;  it  varied  in 
form,  never  in  nature  ;  it  was  only  less  prominent,  not 
less  real,  at  Bethlehem  than  at  Calvary.  The  cross 
was  never  dissociated  from  the  life  ;  he  brought  it  with 
him  ;  he  carried  it  in  his  heart  long  before  the  mob 
laid  it  on  his  shoulder,  and  had  suffered  all  its  agonies 
before  the  nail  was  driven  into  his  flesh.  But  the 
gross-minded  world  could  never  have  known  this  apart 
from  the  sight ;  it  measures  the  sorrow  of  the  soul  by 
the  suffering  of  the  flesh  ;  it  weighs  the  tears  that  it 
may  know  the  weight  of  the  woe,  as  if  all  woes  could 
make  their  way  through  the  eyes.  The  giving  up  of 
the  flesh  was  nothing;  external  force  could  have  over¬ 
come  any  mere  bodily  resistance  ;  the  concurrence  of 
the  spirit  was  essential  to  the  value  of  the  offering  in 
the  sight  of  God.  The  poverty  which  is  caused  by 
irresistible  forces  is  one  thing,  the  poverty  which  comes 
of  self-sacrifice  for  the  good  of  others  is  another. 

The  cross  means  love,  but  what  does  love  mean? 
Can  lexicography  explain  that  word?  We  must  go 
back  to  the  life  for  hints  of  interpretation.  Jesus  Christ 
is  the  answer  as  well  as  the  enigma.  In  no  case  did 
Jesus  Christ  work  for  himself.  He  only  received  that 


THE  CROSS  OF  CHRIST. 


2  43 


he  might  give  ;  he  only  asked  that  he  might  distribute. 
As  he  did  not  live  for  himself,  so  he  did  not  die  for 
himself.  That  melancholy  cross  must  bear  other  stains 
than  those  of  murder ;  he  who  might  have  turned  it 
into  a  throne,  and  waved  from  it  the  sceptre  of  the 
world’s  dominion,  must  have  had  some  object  in  view 
worthy  of  the  generous  life  which  preceded  it.  The 
course  of  beneficence  would  not  be  broken  off  just  be¬ 
fore  the  end.  Jesus  Christ  will  be  consistent  through¬ 
out  ;  for  you,  not  for  me ,  will  be  his  watchword  to  the 
end.  How  can  a  good  man  make  death  give  the  lie 
to  his  life? 

The  method,  too,  of  leaving  the  world  is  consistent 
with  his  method  of  living  in  the  world.  The  cross  is 
a  wonderful  counterpart  of  the  manger.  There  were 
no  violent  discrepancies  in  the  life  ;  only  once,  and 
that  on  the  top  of  a  mountain,  did  the  Godhead  visibly 
burn  in  the  poor  shrine  of  his  flesh,  —  a  sight  which 
Moses  had  seen  prefigured  at  Horeb.  From  beginning 
to  end  there  was  one  line  of  humiliation.  The  child 
of  the  manger  is  the  man  of  the  cross ;  the  youth  who 
was  about  his  Father’s  business  in  the  Temple  was  do¬ 
ing  his  Father’s  will  on  Calvary.  There  were  other 
plans  of  leaving  the  world  than  that  of  crucifixion. 
Why  not  go  up  into  the  skies  at  midday,  amid  a  great 
lustre,  welcomed  by  the  voices  of  angels,  and  the  peal 
of  trumpets?  Why  not  make  a  great  demonstration 
of  power  rather  than  a  saddening  spectacle  of  weak¬ 
ness?  Think  of  what  might  have  been  done!  Yet 
he  was  numbered  with  the  transgressors  ;  his  name 
was  pronounced  as  a  felon’s  ;  and  even  they  who  knew 
him  best  left  him  as  if  he  had  wronged  their  souls. 


ECCE  DEUS. 


244 

The  very  method  of  departure  is  fraught  with  deep 
significance.  The  suffering  itself  must  have  had  a 
meaning.  When  he  could  have  taken  the  wings  of 
the  morning,  or  called  around  him  the  angels  that  ex¬ 
cel  in  strength,  or  gone  up  from  Calvary  as  he  ascended 
from  Olivet,  and  yet  became  obedient  unto  death,  even 
the  death  of  the  cross,  the  very  manner  of  the  dying 
must  have  interpretations  which  separate  it  from  all 
other  deaths. 

Now,  we  may  approach  the  cross  without  any  light 
except  that  of  natural  reason,  or  we  may  avail  our¬ 
selves  of  the  suggestions  of  the  sacred  writings.  Be¬ 
fore  we  attempt  to  interpret,  let  us  come  to  some 
understanding  as  to  canons  and  standards.  With  re¬ 
gard,  first  of  all,  to  natural  reason,  it  may  be  enough 
to  remind  ourselves  that  the  whole  history  of  Jesus 
Christ  removes  itself  as  far  as  possible  from  the  court 
in  which  natural  reason  presides.  We  have  had  occa¬ 
sion  to  point  this  out  incidentally  in  former  chapters  ; 
let  us  now  stand  and  calmly  look  at  it  as  a  fact  likely 
to  help  our  further  inquiries.  Is  there  any  point  in 
the  whole  development  of  Christ’s  person  and  ministry 
at  which  we  can  say,  “  This  is  just  as  we  thought  it 
would  be  ”  ?  Or  is  there  not  everywhere  something 
like  a  studied  upsetting  of  foregone  conclusions  and 
logically-arranged  anticipations?  Given  a  world  that 
lias  lost  its  moral  standing,  to  know  how  God  would 
recover  it ;  and  we  venture  to  say  that  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  answer  would  never  suggest  itself  to  natural  reason. 
That  answer,  then,  stands  by  so  much  at  a  disadvan¬ 
tage  ;  the  whole  stress  of  reason  is  against  it ;  it  has 
every  inch  of  ground  to  make  for  itself,  for  reason  will 


THE  CROSS  OF  CHRIST. 


245 


not  allow  it  90  much  as  a  foothold.  Reason,  on  being 
pressed  for  an  answer,  would  probably  betake  itself  to 
elaborate  demonstration  ;  its  customary  notions  of  the 
proportions  which  means  should  bear  to  ends  would 
force  it  to  set  up  a  most  imposing  breastwork  of  su¬ 
perhuman  appearances  and  interpositions.  Probably 
some  such  plan  as  this  would  be  accounted  reason¬ 
able  :  —  The  world  having  lost  its  moral  standing, 
God  himself,  in  undisguised  personality,  must  speak 
to  it  from  the  heavens  with  a  voice  of  awful  power ; 
the  guilty  world  must  see  him  robed  with  fire,  crowned 
with  a  diadem  in  which  a  thousand  suns  flash  their 
commingling  glories,  and  encircled  by  unnumbered 
squadrons  of  the  seraphim  ;  all  men  must  hear  him 
lamenting  the  apostasy,  and  offering  instantaneous  and 
universal  pardon  ;  the  great  Deceiver  must  be  publicly 
destroyed,  and  his  track  obliterated  from  the  face  of 
the  earth  ;  and,  to  prevent  the  possibility  of  further 
falling,  the  whole  family  of  man  must  be  translated  to 
heaven.  —  This  would  suit  the  reason  that  is  fond  of 
demonstrativeness.  Other  forms  might  be  suggested 
that  would  suit  the  reason  that  is  prone  to  philosophi¬ 
cal  speculation.  But  among  them  all  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  idea  would  never  come  up.  Pain,  sorrow,  humil¬ 
iation,  death,  resurrection,  stand  offbeyond  the  reach  of 
natural  reason.  It  is  not  saying  too  much  to  say  that 
such  a  process  is  offensive  ;  it  is  foolishness ;  it  is  a 
stumbling-block.  What  we  have  to  suggest  is  this : 
that  by  so  much  as  the  Gospel  method  is  removed  from 
the  probabilities  which  natural  reason  would  affirm, 
it  is  unlikely  that  natural  reason  conceited  it.  Tnat 
method  is  not  merely  here  and  there  contrary  to  expec- 


246 


ECCE  DEUS. 


tation,  but  throughout,  from  end  to  end,  there  is  1  ot 
a  solitary  point  which  satisfies  natural  reason.  Was 
ever  reason  so  unreasoning?  Did  reason  ever  so  far 
exceed  the  limit  of  probability?  A  partial  excess 
might  have  been  understood,  an  occasional  obscurity 
might  have  been  accounted  for ;  but  the  mystery  is 
unbroken,  the  lamp  of  reason  nowhere  touches  the 
great  darkness.  Instead  of  foreclosing  the  inquiry, 
this  should  quicken  reverent  investigation.  Original¬ 
ity  is  not  madness.  What  if  God  should  be  greater 
than  man  has  thought  him  to  be?  What  if  the  Infinite 
cannot  be  measured  by  the  finite?  We  are  thrown 
back  upon  analogous  inquiry  respecting  God  —  his 
universe  is  around  11s;  how  does  he  work  in  that? 
History  is  at  hand;  how  has  he  mingled  with  men? 
Man’s  own  personality  is  a  witness.  How  has  God 
created  it,  individualized  it,  kept  it  from  absorption  in 
the  boundless  ocean  of  contemporaneous  life?  Is  God 
easily  understood  everywhere  but  at  the  cross?  Is  he 
a  common  riddle  which  any  child  can  guess?  Or  is 
he  still  an  unsolved  problem  —  the  problem  of  all 
problems?  Is  he  an  exhausted  theme;  or  does  he 
enlarge  before  our  reverent  and  wondering  vision? 
These  collateral  inquiries  may  help  to  set  reason  in  its 
proper  attitude  before  the  cross.  The  sight  which 
Moses  saw  at  Horeb  may  be  reversed  at  Calvary  ; 
Moses  saw  the  God  of  Abraham  in  the  God  of  nature 
—  what  if  we  see  the  God  of  nature  in  the  God  of 
Abraham?  Nature  itself  offers  a  thousand  perplex¬ 
ities  to  reason  ;  out  of  the  whirlwind  God  has  rebuked 
the  complaining  and  dissatisfied  Jobs  of  the  race: 
u  Where  wast  thou  when  I  laid  the  foundations  of  the 


THE  CROSS  OF  CHRIST. 


24J 

earth?  declare,  if  thou  hast  understanding.  .  .  .  Hast 
thou  commanded  the  morning  since  thy  days,  and 
caused  the  dayspring  to  know  his  place?  .  .  .  Hast 
thou  entered  into  the  springs  of  the  sea  ;  or  hast  thou 
walked  in  the  search  of  the  depth  ?  .  .  .  Gavest  thou 
the  goodly  wings  unto  the  peacocks  ;  or  wings  and 
feathers  unto  the  ostrich?”  With  a  peremptory  voice 
God  thus  shuts  out  human  wisdom  and  power  from 
nature;  what  wonder  if  the  same  voice  should  chide 
self-sufficiency  when  it  pronounces  on  “  the  mystery 
of  godliness”?  As  the  very  impossibility  of  man 
making  any  one  thing  in  nature  is  regarded  as  a 
proof  of  God’s  power,  why  should  the  utter  impos¬ 
sibility  of  man  conceiving  the  New  Testament  idea  of 
salvation  not  be  regarded  as  a  proof  of  God’s  wisdom? 
There  is  a  point  at  which  reason  leaves  nature,  unable 
to  make  further  way  ;  it  does  not  consequently  deny 
the  universe  :  why  not  treat  with  the  same  trust  the 
greater  mystery  of  which  the  most  mysterious  nature 
is  but  the  background? 

-  The  Scriptures  are  not  silent  respecting  the  meaning 
of  the  cross.  If  we  credit  the  Scriptures  as  to  the  fact 
of  the  cross,  why  doubt  them  as  to  its  meaning?  Do 
they  tell  the  truth  in  history,  and  tell  lies  in  doctrine? 
We  put  it  thus  frankly,  because,  if  the  professedly 
divine  word  is  modified,  he  who  modifies  it  must  be 
wiser  than  God,  or  it  bears  itself  a  forged  signature. 
What,  then,  do  the  Scriptures  say  respecting  the  cross? 
To  the  inquiry,  Why  was  Jesus  Christ  given  up?  they 
answer :  “  He  was  delivered  for  our  offences.”  To 
the  inquiry,  Why  did  he  suffer?  they  reply :  “Christ 
hath  once  suffered  for  our  sins,  the  iust  for  the  unjust, 


248 


ECCE  DEU3. 


that  he  might  bring  us  to  God.”  We  inquire  for  what 
purpose  he  suffered,  and  they  answer :  u  He  gave 
himself  for  our  sins,  that  he  might  deliver  us  from 
this  present  evil  world,  according  to  the  will  of  God 
and  our  Father.”  -If  we  ask  what  practical  effect  the 
offering  of  Jesus  Christ  should  have  upon  us,  the 
Scriptures  reply  :  “  Who  his  own  self  bare  our  sins 
in  his  body  on  the  tree,  that  we,  being  dead  to  sins, 
should  live  unto  righteousness.”  When  we  ask,  Did 
he  die  for  himself  or  for  others?  we  are  told,  with  the 
utmost  precision,  that  u  Christ  died  for  the  ungodly.” 
This  is  the  testimony  of  Scripture.  We  get  the  doc¬ 
trine  where  we  get  the  fact.  Can  we  obtain  better 
answers  elsewhere?  The  responsibility  of  rejection 
lies  with  the  reader.  It  is  easier  to  blow  out  a  light 
than  to  create  one.  Here  is  a  great  historic  event 
which  is  to  be  explained;  we  may  exercise  the  spec¬ 
ulative  faculty  in  balancing  guess  after  guess,  or  accept 
the  testimony  which  is  avowedly  of  God.  Let  us  see 
in  which  direction  this  testimony  goes. 

The  Scriptures  declare  plainly  that  the  cross  stands 
in  direct  relation  to  sin.  Sin  necessitated  a  condition 
which  love  alone  could  meet.  Holiness  never  caused 
death.  All  that  comes  within  what  may  be  called  the 
sphere  of  death  (pain,  misery,  disappointment,  tears) 
is  due  immediately  to  moral  decay.  Throughout  the 
Scriptures  this  principle  is  constantly  affirmed,  but 
nowhere  is  it  seen  in  full  force  of  demonstration  but 
on  the  cross.  It  could  not  have  been  a  trifle  which 
started  the  great  drops  of  blood  from  the  body  of 
Jesus  Christ  in  Gethsemane,  or  that  caused  him  his 
exceeding  sorrow  on  the  tree.  Great  natures  cannot 


THE  CROSS  OF  CHRIST. 


249 


weep  blood  but  on  great  occasions.  There  must,  then, 
have  been  something  terrible  about  this  moral  putres¬ 
cence  w  hich  is  called  sin.  It  was  no  speck  on  the 
surface  ;  it  was  poison  in  the  blood.  The  tones  heard 
at  Golgotha  are  not  the  harsh  tones  of  vengeance  ; 
there  is  no  scream  of  fury;  no  thunder  of  cursing: 
there  is  a  wail  of  sorrow,  deep,  loud,  long,  as  if  the 
very  heart  of  God  had  broken.  It  is  the  agony  of 
love ;  it  is  the  paroxysm  of  a  lacerated  and  dying 
spirit.  It  was  love  that  had  failed  in  life,  determined 
to  succeed  in  death.  It  was  dying  innocence  strug¬ 
gling  with  dead  guilt.  And  does  not  every  man  repeat 
in  his  low  degree  the  same  great  tragedy?  Can  any 
man  forgive  without  suffering?  Can  a  man  take  back 
even  his  own  wicked  son  without  first  stretching  his 
fatherly  heart  on  the  cross?  When  a  father  sheds 
tears  over  his  rebellious  child  he  carries  his  anger  to 
the  sublimest  point.  God’s  hatred  of  sin  is  best  seen, 
not  in  his  frowns,  but  in  his  tears.  Hell  does  not  af¬ 
ford  the  most  impressive  view  of  God’s  estimate  of 
sin.  When  Christ  said,  u  My  soul  is  exceeding  sor¬ 
rowful,  even  unto  death,”  he  did  more  to  show  the 
horror  in  which  he  held  sin  than  could  have  been 
shown  in  all  the  fire  that  glows  and  blazes  through¬ 
out  the  universe.  We  best  know  the  intensity  of  hu¬ 
man  anger  when  it  settles  into  deep  human  sorrow; 
so  we  see  God’s  hatred  of  sin  more  in  the  storm  of 
grief  which  Christ  endured  than  if  the  angry  heavens 
had  shot  lightning  into  every  point  of  space.  God 
suffered  more  than  the  sinner  can  ever  suffer  on  ac¬ 
count  of  sin.  Does  not  the  parent  suffer  more  than 
the  sinning  child  ?  The  sinner  by  his  very  sinfulness 


ECCE  DEUS. 


*5° 

lessens  his  own  capacity  of  suffering,  while  virtue  is 
shocked  through  every  sensibility. 

What,  then,  was  the  relation  of  the  cross  to  sin? 
It  meant  more  than  condemnation.  The  mere  con¬ 
demnation  of  sin  was  not  worth  all  this  expenditure 
of  the  finest  fibre  of  life.  The  thunder  or  the  whirl¬ 
wind  might  have  sufficed  for  anathema,  had  that  been 
all  that  the  case  required.  There  was,  however,  not 
only  a  curse  to  pronounce,  but  a  blessing  to  offer  ;  — 
not  only  was  the  devouring  beast  that  had  committed 
such  havoc  in  the  flock  of  God  to  be  destroyed,  but 
that  flock  was  to  be  protected,  saved  !  This  could  not 
be  done  by  mere  power.  The  hand  of  the  Lord  is 
omnipotent,  but  omnipotence  can  work  upon  the  heart 
only  with  the  heart’s  consent.  We  say  reverently,  but 
with  deep  conviction,  that  when  omnipotence  is  weak, 
then  it  is  strong  ;  broken,  bleeding,  dying  on  the  cross, 
Jesus  Christ  is  mightier  than  if  the  armies  of  heaven 
had  fought  in  his  name.  In  the  hour  of  its  majesty 
omnipotence  may  strike  terror  into  human  hearts  ;  but 
when  omnipotence  allows  itself  to  be  mocked,  defied, 
wounded,  and  broken  on  the  cross,  it  gets  hold  upon 
the  heart  deep  as  the  roots  of  life.  The  cross,  be  it 
repeated,  goes  deeper  than  mere  condemnation ;  it 
shows  how  the  holiest  suffer  most,  and  how  without 
suffering  even  the  holiest  cannot  forgive.  It  shows 
the  tenderness  of  God.  He  cannot  look  with  indif¬ 
ference  upon  fallen  humanity  ;  he  suffers  with  it,  that 
through  suffering  he  may  renew  his  hold  upon  it,  and 
recover  it  to  himself.  So  the  cross  comes  to  have  a 
great  power  in  interpreting  the  essential  dignity  and 


THE  CROSS  OF  CHRIST. 


2Sl 


value  of  human  nature.  In  God’s  suffering  we  sec  man’s 
worth.  His  erectness,  faculty  of  speech,  dominion  over 
inferior  life,  and  power  of  reasoning  upon  the  future, 
have  a  strange  light  of  divinity  lingering  upon  them 
even  now.  In  his  wildest  talk  there  are  accents  and 
snatches  of  expression  which  must  have  come  from  heav¬ 
en  ;  his  magistracy  is  a  reprint  of  an  ancient  charter; 
his  thinking  is  the  dim  light  which  struggles  through 
an  eclipsed  genius.  He  does  not  know  himself  as  a 
fallen  member  of  the  heavenly  hierarchy  :  he  gropes 
and  flounders  as  though  he  had  lost  something ;  and 
now  and  again  there  come  through  his  daily  life  gushes 
of  tenderness  and  glitterings  of  mind  which  have  a 
deep  meaning,  a  meaning  which  makes  the  heart  sore 
and  sad  as  it  vainly  tries  to  piece  itself  into  wholeness 
and  render  the  ciphers  into  intelligible  language. 
The  cross  tells  man  what  he  is,  and  what  he  may 
be.  It  tells  him  what  a  sinner  he  is,  and  what  a  son 
of  God  he  may  become.  All  that ,  look  at  it !  to  lift 
man  up,  a  cleansed,  pardoned  rebel !  Tears  could  not 
reach  his  case,  only  blood  could;  —  “without  shed¬ 
ding  of  blood  there  is  no  remission  of  sins.”  Only 
life  could  reach  death.  Only  God  can  sound  the 
depths  of  the  human  fall.  Christ  said  he  would  draw 
all  men  unto  him  when  he  was  u  lifted  up  from  the 
earth  ;  ”  they  would  see  what  he  was,  and  what  they 
are,  and  the  revelation  would  have  a  resurrecticnal 
effect  upon  them.  Not  that  they  would  escape  suffer¬ 
ing  on  that  account,  but  rather  that  they  would  suffer 
more  when  they  saw  what  he  suffered  for  them.  In 
the  midst  of  his  sin,  man  does  not  see  the  enormity 


ECCE  DEUS. 


of  his  own  guilt ;  in  the  midnight  revel,  in  the  eagei 
pursuit  of  forbidden  pleasure,  in  the  whirl  and  thun¬ 
der  of  excitement,  he  does  not  see  the  case  as  it  is ; 
but,  when  he  sees  the  agony  of  a  holy  woman  as  she 
pours  her  burning  tears  over  the  recollection  of  his 
misdeeds,  he  begins  to  feel  how  great  must  have  been 
the  sin  which  has  wrought  such  sorrow,  and  learns 
from  a  broken  heart  how  far  he  has  gone  astray.  In 
some  such  manner,  with  infinite  extension  of  the  pro¬ 
portions,  men  see  their  history  best  at  the  cross ;  on 
the  background  of  Christ’s  innocence,  as  he  hangs 
there  in  mortal  pain,  they  see  how  black,  how  ulcer¬ 
ous,  how  deadly  is  their  own  sin.  They  never  could 
have  seen  it  otherwise.  No  man  could  have  shown  it 
to  them.  Only  Jesus  Christ  could  reveal  the  exceed¬ 
ing  sinfulness  of  sin.  t/ 

There  is  still  more  in  the  cross  than  God’s  view  of 
human  guilt.  There  is  all  that  is  meant  by  a  word 
which  is  almost  over-familiarized  —  salvation .  It 
shows  not  only  what  man  is,  but  what  man  may 
be ;  not  only  the  withered  and  decrepit  rebel,  but 
the  robed  and  crowned  saint.  There  are  yet  great 
possibilities  in  manhood.  The  sun  was  a  finished 
creation,  as  large  and  bright  on  the  first  morning  as 
he  is  to-day  ;  but  primaeval  man  was  a  germ,  —  little 
as  a  grain  of  mustard  seed,  compared  with  a  gigantic 
and  overshadowing  tree.  The  worm  laid  hold  of  the 
root,  and  all  the  juices  were  so  poisoned  that  no  sum¬ 
mer  dew  or  light  can  expel  the  corruption.  Christ 
did  what  was  required,  and  now  every  fibre  feels  the 
energy  of  his  life.  As  out  of  the  dead  Christ  upon  the 
cross  came  the  Mediator  who  is  now  in  heaven,  so 


THE  CROSS  OF  CHRIST.  253 

out  of  all  who  die  with  him  shall  come  a  renewed  and 
glorified  manhood. 

The  cross  was  an  expression  of  God’s  love  to  the  hu¬ 
man  family,  —  not  his  justice,  or  vengeance,  or  wrath  : 
these  are  but  fractional  words;  the  integral  word  is  love. 
“  God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  onty-begot- 
ten  Son.”  All  love  must  give.  Only  one  love  rose  to 
die  highest  point  of  sacrifice.  The  cross  means  justice, 
law,  and  satisfaction,  only  as  elements  or  aspects  of  love. 
Yet  sacrifice,  in  the  sense  of  self-surrender,  we  have  said, 
is  in  the  very  nature  of  love  :  it  is  the  last  expression 
of  love  ;  we  only  love  any  being  in  proportion  as  we 
are  prepared  to  suffer  for  his  sake,  —  not  one  whit 
more  ;  we  may  never  be  called  upon  to  undergo  the 
suffering,  still  the  willingness  to  suffer  is  the  precise 
measure  of  the  love.  If  love  be  represented  by  a 
straight  line,  sacrifice  is  the  last  point  of  it,  —  not 
something  beyond  it,  but  something  in  it,  something 
of  it.  All  love,  then,  is  strictly  sacrifice,  —  counting 
nothing  its  own  while  its  object  is  unattained.  We 
thus  get  a  glimpse  of  God’s  love  towards  man  ;  he 
loved  him  to  the  shedding  of  blood  —  not  the  blood 
of  inferior  life,  but  the  blood  of  his  only-begotten 
Son.  The  point  of  sacrifice  is  indicated  by  the  word 
only ,  —  a  word  which  intimates  that  there  was  noth¬ 
ing  left  behind,  no  spared  treasure,  —  all  was  given  ; 
not  the  hand  only,  but  the  heart,  —  not  the  heart’s 
sigh,  but  the  heart’s  blood.  He  who  gave  this  might 
vvell^  say  that  he  loved  the  world.  To  give  one  out 
of  many  would  have  been  nothing ;  to  have  only  one, 
and  to  give  it,  was  as  much  as  even  God  could  do. 
Out  of  all  this  comes  once  more  the  idea  of  the  value 


254  ECCE  DEUS. 

of  human  nature.  The  ideas  of  Christ’s  life  and  man’s 
worth  are  inseparable  ;  they  so  interpenetrate  as  to 
explain  the  apparent  contradiction  that  Jesus  Christ 
was  alike  Son  of  God  and  Son  of  man.  What  was  to 
prevent  God  allowing  the  human  family  to  fall  into 
utter  darkness,  and  to  be  forgotten  forever?  Nothing 
but  love.  He  had  made  man  in  his  own  image  :  how 
could  he  withhold  from  him  his  own  Son? 

But  is  there  not  a  great  practical  difficulty?  Man’s 
relation  to  the  cross  is  a  different  thing  to  the  relation 
of  the  cross  to  man.  In  the  latter  we  have  God’s 
declaration;  what  have  we  in  the  former?  Man  has 
the  power  (necessary  indeed  to  being  a  man)  to  treat 
the  cross  with  indifference,  to  join  those  who  wagged 
their  heads,  and  uttered  taunting  words,  and  to  see  in 
the  cross  nothing  but  an  ignominious  failure.  God 
did  not  set  up  the  cross  merely  that  he  might  win  a 
victory,  but  that  he  might  express  a  sorrow.  If  not 
a  man  be  moved  by  the  display  of  affection  and  grief, 
the  cross  has  not  failed  altogether  of  its  purpose.  The 
parent  weeps  even  over  the  child  that  will  not  be  re 
covered,  and  the  weeping  shows  at  once  the  agony 
and  the  love.  It  relieves  him  even  to  open  the  door 
which  may  never  be  entered  by  the  wanderer.  What 
if  this  be  a  hint  of  the  feeling  that  is  in  God  ?  What 
if  his  great  sorrow  must  have  an  outlet,  and  if  that 
outlet  be  the  cross? 

It  is  not  uncommon  to  represent  the  sacrifice  of 
Jesus  Christ  as  being  a  satisfaction  to  divine  justice, 
an  appeasing  of  the  divine  anger,  a  quenching  of  the 
fire  that  is  in  God.  There  is  a  sense  in  which  these 
terms  are  true,  but  the  terms  have  been  most  foully 


THE  CROSS  OF  CHRIST. 


abused  and  most  disastrously  applied.  The  cross  was 
not  a  satisfaction  to  divine  justice  as  if  that  were  a 
special  kind  of  justice  ;  it  was  quite  as  much  a  satis¬ 
faction  to  what  may  be  termed  human  justice,  —  to 
justice  itself,  whether  in  God  or  in  man.  Human 
nature,  quickened  into  perfect  consciousness,  would 
itself  affirm  the  necessity  of  a  basis  upon  which  one 
attribute  would  not  be  upheld  at  the  expense  of 
another.  If  it  was  simply  the  penal  side  of  justice 
that  required  to  be  satisfied,  then  the  cross  did  not 
meet  the  case,  and  nothing  could  have  met  it  but  the 
instant  and  utter  destruction  of  the  human  family. 
For  God  to  take  mere  vengeance  upon  his  Son  on 
account  of  a  race  that  had  sinned,  would  have  been 
entirely  inconsistent  with  his  nature.  It  is  an  unjust 
justice  that  is  satisfied  with  the  suffering  of  an  inno¬ 
cent  being ;  but  a  most  holy  and  righteous  justice  that 
cannot  pardon  sin  without  the  humiliation  of  confession 
and  the  sorrow  of  penitence  on  the  part  of  the  offender. 
Christ’s  sacrifice,  consequently,  was  a  satisfaction  to 
the  spirit  of  justice  alike  in  God  and  in  man  ;  it  pro¬ 
tested  that  the  original  law  was  right ;  it  guarded  the 
divine  wisdom  from  the  charge  of  having  laid  down  a 
wrong  law  ;  it  made  the  law  honorable,  and  so  pre¬ 
served  the  consistency  and  majesty  of  God’s  moral 
government.  See  what  would  have  been  the  effect  if 
no  such  sacrifice  had  been  offered  :  let  it  be  supposed 
that  God  could  have  indifferently  regarded  every  vio¬ 
lation  of  his  law,  and  that  he  had  virtually  said,  u  If 
you  don’t  like  this  law,  try  another,  —  if  my  require¬ 
ments  are  too  exacting,  modify  them.”  In  that  case, 
he  would  hare  simply  surrendered  his  Godhead,  lor 


25  6 


ECCE  DEUS. 


no  moral  law  can  be  modified  —  to  break  a  letter  of  it 
is  to  break  it  all ;  right  can  never  be  less  than  right, 
wrong  can  never  be  more  than  wrong ;  and  the  moral 
law  was  not  a  law  superimposed  upon  moral  beings 
without  any  regard  to  their  own  nature.  On  the  con¬ 
trary,  it  was  in  perfect  harmony  with  man’s  moral 
constitution  ;  so  that  when  man  offended  the  justice  of 
God,  he  also  offended  his  own,  and  no  sacrifice  coidd 
avail  that  did  not  satisfv  the  whole  claim  of  abstract 
justice.  This  case  could  be  met  only  by  an  uncor¬ 
rupted  Being,  —  a  Lamb  without  blemish  and  without 
spot ;  and  such  a  Lamb  was  found  in  the  only-begot- 
ten  Son  of  God.  The  mere  affirmation  of  the  sanctity 
of  justice  would  not  have  been  sufficient ;  it  might 
have  been  enough  for  God  himself  to  have  thundered 
through  the  universe  that  he  hated  sin  and  still  main¬ 
tained  his  law  ;  but  it  would  have  left  man  where  he 
was,  for  no  man  can  repair  his  yesterdays,  or  pay  the 
arrears  of  his  life.  The  crisis  was  met  by  the  gift  of 
the  Son  ;  so  that  not  only  may  God  be  just,  and  yet 
the  justifier  of  the  ungodly,  but  man  can  receive  the 
justification  without  feeling  that  his  innate  sense  of 
justice  is  dishonored.  He  can  truly  say  that  the  law 
was  good  and  right ;  that  from  the  beginning  God  was 
just,  and  that  he  alone  was  guilty  and  helpless  before 
the  Most  High.  He  feels  that  God  has  not  trifled 
with  law,  but  that  mercy  itself  is  an  aspect  of  justice. 
The  human  is  satisfied  as  well  as  the  divine.  Was, 
then,  the  punishment  all  Christ’s,  and  the  favor  all 
man’s  ?  Certainly  not.  Man’s  punishment  is  even 
now  according  to  his  sensitiveness;  not  only  at  the 
crisis  which  is  popularly  designated  his  repentance, 


THE  CROSS  OF  CHRIST. 


2  57 


but  throughout  his  life  he  suffers  on  account  of  his 
sins.  The  good  man’s  life  is  one  unbroken  repentance  ; 
repentance  is  not  the  act  of  an  hour,  —  it  is  the  constant 
experience  of  the  soul.  What,  then,  of  joy?  It  is 
contemporaneous  with  repentance.  It  is  inseparable 
from  it.  The  joy  that  is  born  of  sorrow  is  the  only 
joy  that  is  enduring ;  not  a  transient  gleam,  but  life¬ 
long  light. 

We  have  not  followed  the  analysis  of  the  scientific 
theologian,  but  have  rather  come  abruptly  upon  such 
points  as  have  been  thrown  up  by  the  biographers  of 
Jesus  Christ.  Our  purpose  may  not  lose  anything  by 
this,  as  the  plan  of  this  work  does  not  admit  of  much 
regard  being  paid  to  Polemical  Divinity,  to  wdiose 
mischievous  course  we  can  never  refer  without  a  feel¬ 
ing  of  intense  dissatisfaction.  We  have  the  Cross  be¬ 
fore  us  as  the  chief  fact  in  all  known  history  ;  and  as 
there  is  suspended  upon  it  a  Man  with  whose  life  we 
have  now  become  reverently  familiar,  we  wish  to 
know  the  exact  relation  which  subsists  between  the 
life  as  a  whole  and  this  its  final  and  most  melancholy 
act.  Throughout  the  life  we  have  constantly  seen  an 
endeavor  to  save  men  ;  never  to  destroy  them.  Is  the 
cross  in  keeping  with  this  noble  aim  !  We  have,  too, 
seen  the  most  perfect  unselfishness.  Does  the  cross 
sustain  the  impression  which  such  unselfishness  has 
made  upon  the  heart?  Does  the  cross  start  a  new  and 
unexpected  chapter  in  Christ’s  life,  or  is  it  of  a  piece 
with  all  that  has  gone  before?  By  so  much  as  it  is 
accordant  with  the  tenor  of  the  antecedent  couise,  it 
is  a  purpose,  not  an  accident ;  —  by  so  much  does  it 
represent  a  sacrifice,  not  a  martyrdom  ;  an  atonement, 


25S 


ECCE  DEUS. 


not  a  murder.  If  Jesus  Christ  had  no  power  to  resist 
the  cross,  then  he  was  a  mere  martyr ;  but  if  he  could 
have  overturned  the  purpose  of  the  Jews,  he  was  enti¬ 
tled  to  say  of  his  life,  u  No  man  taketh  it  from  me,  but 
I  lay  it  down  of  myself ;  I  have  power  to  lay  it  down, 
and  I  have  power  to  take  it  again.”  There  is  here 
the  authority  which  was  present  in  the  working  of 
miracles.  What  if  all  the  other  miracles  were  about 
to  be  eclipsed  in  the  miracle  which  he  wrought  upon 
himself?  Was  not  the  Resurrection  a  gathering  up 
and  reproduction  of  the  miraculous  element  which 
pervaded  Christ’s  whole  life?  Was  it  not  a  healing 
of  the  diseased,  an  opening  of  blind  eyes,  an  unstop¬ 
ping  of  deaf  ears,  a  strengthening  of  withered  limbs, 
—  in  short,  a  magnificent  recapitulation  of  the  elo¬ 
quent  argument  of  miracles? 

So  far  as  God  the  Father  was  concerned,  what  did 
the  cross  signify?  It  signified  all  that  can  be  compre¬ 
hended  under  the  term  love.  So  far  as  Jesus  Christ 
was  concerned,  what  did  the  cross  signify?  Its  inter 
pretation  runs  thus :  I  die  that  men  may  live ;  I  en¬ 
counter  the  storm  of  sin  that  men  may  live  in  the  calm 
of  holiness  ;  I  show  how  submission  may  be  conquest ; 
I  show  the  utmost  verge  and  boundary  of  love ;  I  honor 
a  broken  law  and  establish  a  basis  of  gracious  com¬ 
munication  between  God  and  man.  He  makes  all 
other  woes  light.  Men  forget  their  miseries  in  the 
sob  of  his  overwhelming  sorrow.  So  far  as  man  was 
concerned,  what  did  the  cross  signify?  It  signified 
his  guilt,  his  self-helplessness,  his  entire  dependence 
upon  God  for  pardon,  purity,  and  all  the  blessings  of 
salvation.  It  was  the  return-way  to  God ;  too  strait 


THE  CROSS  OF  CHRIST.  259 

for  selfishness,  but  wide  enough  for  penitence  and 
trust. 

Are  sacrifice  and  atonement  equivalent  terms?  Not 
necessarily.  Atonement  is  the  possible  result  of  sac¬ 
rifice,  when  looked  at  from  the  human  side.  The 
atonement,  practically  considered,  may  be  regarded  as 
the  application  which  the  sinner  himself  makes  of  the 
sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ.  This  may  be  illustrated  by 
a  reference  to  the  typical  ritual :  u  Aaron  shall  bring 
the  bullock  of  the  sin-offering  which  is  for  himself  and 
for  his  house,  and  shall  kill  the  bullock  of  the  sin- 
offering  which  is  for  himself.  Then  shall  he  kill  the 
goat  of  the  sin-offering  that  is  for  the  people,  and 
bring  his  blood  within  the  vail,  and  do  with  that  blood 
as  he  did  with  the  blood  of  the  bullock,  and  sprinkle 
it  upon .  the  mercy-seat  and  before  the  mercy-seat. 
And  this  shall  be  an  everlasting  statute  unto  you,  to 
make  an  atonement  for  the  children  of  Israel  for  all 
their  sins  once  a  year.”  The  sinner  is  not  saved  sim¬ 
ply  because  Jesus  Christ  died  upon  the  cross,  but  be¬ 
cause  he  accepted  that  death  as  his  own  expression  of 
the  necessity  of  sacrifice  for  the  pardon  of  guilt.  He 
thus  becomes,  in  a  secondary  though  most  practical 
sense,  his  own  priest ;  so  to  speak,  he  offers  Christ 
continually  as  his  sacrifice ;  he  confesses  his  poverty, 
and  pleads  the  worthiness  of  the  Lamb.  This  is  not 
inconsistent  with  the  scriptural  doctrine  of  Christ’s 
priesthood,  for  we  find  that  Jesus  Christ  was  both 
priest  and  sacrifice,  —  u  once  in  the  end  of  the  world 
hath  he  appeared  to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of 
hipiself,”  —  and  thus  the  marvellous  duality  which  we 
have  traced  through  the  whole  argument  is  present  at 


26o 


ECCE  DEUS. 


the  very  end  of  the  life.  The  sinner  can  only  offer 
himself  as  a  living  sacrifice,  after  he  has  partaken  of 
the  benefits  of  Christ’s  offering  ;  but  a  living  sacrifice 
does  not  meet  the  necessities  of  the  case,  for  u  without 
shedding  of  blood  there  is  no  remission  of  sins.”  A 
man  might  offer  himself,  but  suicide  is  not  sacrifice. 
He  must  go  out  of  himself  for  help  ;  and  if  he  go  else¬ 
where  than  to  Jesus  Christ,  he  incurs  the  responsibil¬ 
ity  of  counting  the  blood  of  the  covenant  an  unholy 
thing.  He  impugns  the  wisdom  of  God.  “  He  that 
despised  Moses’  law  died  without  mercy  under  two  or 
three  witnesses :  of  how  much  sorer  punishment,  sup¬ 
pose  ye,  shall  he  be  thought  worthy  who  hath  trod¬ 
den  under  foot  the  Son  of  God,  and  hath  counted  the 
blood  of  the  covenant,  wherewith  he  was  sanctified, 
an  unholy  thing  (xoivov,  a  common  thing,  the  blood 
of  a  common  man),  and  hath  done  despite  unto  the 
Spirit  of  grace?”  The  Lamb  of  God  has  been  offered 
for  the  sins  of  the  world,  and  thus  an  atonement  has 
been  made  ;  yet,  unless  every  man  accept  that  offering 
on  his  own  account,  and,  as  it  were,  present  it  in  his 
own  name,  it  will  be  no  atonement  for  him,  —  rather 
a  witness  against  him,  and  a  most  sure  ground  of  con¬ 
demnation.  If  the  sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ  were  to 
take  saving  effect  without  an  appropriating  action  on 
the  part  of  man,  the  moral  constitution  of  the  universe 
would  be  overridden ;  man  would  be  saved  apart 
from  his  own  will,  and  thus  his  moral  liberty  would 
be  mocked  and  set  at  nought.  Jesus  Christ  distinctly 
proceeds  on  a  different  principle  ;  in  working  out  the 
basis  of  man’s  salvation,  he  respects  the  fundamental 
conditions  of  manhood,  leaving  it  perfectly  possible  for 


THE  CROSS  OF  CHRIST. 


26l 


his  cross  to  be  misunderstood  and  despised.  “  If  we 
sin  wilfully  after  that  we  have  received  the  knowledge 
of  the  truth,  there  remaineth  no  more  sacrifice  for 
sins,  but  a  certain  fearful  looking  for  of  judgment 
and  fiery  indignation  which  shall  devour  the  adver¬ 
saries,” 


262 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

RELATION  OF  THE  CROSS  TO  THE  LAW. 

THE  Cross,  which  we  have  just  been  studying, 
must  have  produced  many  deep  moral  effects. 
It  is  proposed  now  to  look  at  its  relation  to  the  prin¬ 
cipal  educational  agent  which  had  been  operating  in 
society  until  the  time  of  its  appearance.  That  educa¬ 
tional  agent  was  Law  ;  a  term,  however,  which  has 
been  used  in  so  many  senses,  that  it  may  be  necessary 
first  of  all  to  fix  the  meaning  which  we  attach  to  it  in 
this  chapter  with  some  approach  to  precision.  Even 
in  the  sacred  writings  the  term  “  law”  is  employed  in 
various  senses :  for  example,  it  sometimes  compre¬ 
hends  the  whole  doctrine  of  revelation,  —  thus,  the 
“delight”  of  the  “blessed  man”  is  in  “the  law  of 
the  Lord,  and  in  his  law  doth  he  meditate  day  and 
night.”  Sometimes  it  is  limited  to  the  Ten  Com¬ 
mandments,  thus,  “  I  had  not  known  lust,  except  the 
law  had  said,  Thou  shalt  not  covet.”  Sometimes  it 
describes  the  principle  or  tendency  within  men  which 
is  known  as  “  the  law  of  their  being ;  ”  thus,  “  I  see 
another  law  in  my  members,  warring  against  the  law 
of  my  mind,  and  bringing  me  into  captivity  to  the 
law  of  sin  which  is  in  my  members.”  Occasionally, 
it  is  used  to  signify  the  sense  of  right  and  wrong  which 
is  in  every  man,  apart  altogether  from  written  statutes 


RELATION  OF  THE  CROSS  TO  THE  LAW.  263 

and  formal  sanctions:  thus  —  “When  the  Gentiles, 
which  have  not  the  law,  do  by  nature  the  things  con¬ 
tained  in  the  law,  these,  having  not  the  law,  are  a 
law  unto  themselves :  which  show  the  work  of  the 
law  written  in  their  hearts,  their  conscience  also  bear¬ 
ing  witness,  and  their  thoughts  the  meanwhile  accus¬ 
ing  or  else  excusing  one  another.”  This  is  the  innate 
law  to  which  every  other  law,  either  of  God  or  man, 
must  make  its  appeal,  —  a  law  without  which  even 
the  commandment  of  God  would  be  a  dead  letter ;  it 
is  as  the  eye  of  the  soul,  apart  from  which  all  light 
would  be  shed  upon  the  moral  nature  in  vain.  Then 
there  is  what  has  been  termed  the  law  of  love  ;  that 
sublime  concentration  and  urgency  of  the  soul  in  all 
loving  homage  and  service,  which  cannot  be  regulated 
by  written  orders,  or  formal  stipulations,  but  is  a  de¬ 
light,  a  holy  rapture,  a  hallowed,  self-forgetful,  and 
all-surrendering  passion.  This  is  the  law  of  un¬ 
fallen  angels  and  justified  spirits.  They  serve  with 
an  ardor  which  can  never  be  enkindled  by  any  stat¬ 
utes  which  could  be  written  with  ink,  or  engraven 
on  stones.  There  are  several  other,  perhaps  minor, 
senses  in  which  the  term  “  law  ”  is  employed,  but 
the  main  use  is  that  which  Paul  makes  of  it,  when 
he  includes  under  it  all  the  outward  system  of  com¬ 
mands,  prohibitions,  checks,  rewards,  and  penalties 
which  was  divinely  established  to  meet  the  apostasy 
of  the  race.  Now,  in  relation  to  this  system  of  im¬ 
perative  edicts,  the  author  of  Ecce  Ho?no  well  says 
that  the  work  of  Jesus  Christ  operates  in  a  manner 
at  once  of  ratification  and  abolition.  Paul  says  we 
are  delivered  from  the  law,  that  being  dead  wherein 


264 


ECCE  DEUS. 


we  were  held  ;  that  we  should  serve  in  newness  of 
the  spirit,  and  not  in  the  oldness  of  the  letter.  Paul 
is  most  precise  and  clear  upon  this  point ;  he  never 
hesitates  about  it;  anticipating  anything  like  objec¬ 
tion  to  the  width  of  libertv  which  he  claimed,  he 
said,  u  The  law  of  the  Spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus 
hath  made  me  free  from  the  law  of  sin  and  death.” 
He  stood  in  a  new  relation  towards  God  and  man ; 
he  was  no  longer  pressed  and  checked,  like  an  un¬ 
disciplined  child,  but  had  entered  into  what  in  one 
of  his  exultant  moods  he  called  the  glorious  liberty 
of  the  children  of  God.  How  has  he  attained  this 
freedom  ?  What  is  the  signature,  and  what  the  date 
of  his  charter?  In  prosecuting  the  inquiry,  we  hope 
to  come  upon  the  meaning  of  the  words,  u  The  law 
came  by  Moses,  but  grace  and  truth  by  Jesus  Christ.,, 

Man  must  stand  in  one  of  two  relations  to  law ; 
either  to  law  as  an  outward  declaration  of  divine 
authority  in  a  rebellious  sphere,  or  to  law  as  an  in¬ 
ward  principle  of  love,  trust,  and  self-surrender  to 
the  divine  Father.  Take  the  principle  into  the 
family  for  practical  elucidation.  Law,  as  an  out¬ 
ward  authority,  is  established  in  the  family,  to  meet 
ignorance  on  the  one  hand,  or  disorder  on  the  other. 
So  long  as  the  household  has  worked  harmoniously, 
the  head  of  the  house  does  not  feel  called  upon  to 
write  commandments,  and  publish  edicts ;  he  truly 
says,  “  It  is  better  to  have  spontaneous  expressions 
of  interest  and  love,  than  forced  submission  ;  ”  but 
when  family  order  has  been  set  aside,  he  feels  that 
wheie  love  has  been  defective,  law  must  be  made 
stringent ;  as  the  moral  impulse  is  weak,  the  outward 


RELATION  OF  THE  CROSS  TO  THE  LAW.  265 

prohibition  must  be  emphatic.  Legal  restriction  is 
in  proportion  to  moral  feebleness.  The  stronger  the 
written  law,  the  weaker  the  unwritten  dictate  of  love. 
The  ignorant  or  self-opinionated  man,  especially  the 
guilty  man,  must  have  law  thrust  upon  his  notice, 
thundered  into  his  ear,  sometimes,  indeed,  scourged 
into  his  flesh.  By  an  inverse  process  we  may  read 
a  nation’s  (or  a  man’s)  moral  history  by  studying  its 
penal  code.  The  legislators  and  magistrates  are  con¬ 
stantly,  though  it  may  be  unconsciously,  writing  the 
spiritual  history  of  the  country.  Many  criminal  laws 
simpty  mean  much  crime.  So  with  the  family, — 
where  there  are  many  commandments,  there  is  moral 
incapacity,  or  moral  turpitude,  on  the  part  of  the 
household,  or  a  miserable  littleness,  and  pitiful  conceit 
of  authority,  on  the  part  of  the  domestic  legislator. 

Outward  law  is  necessarily  consequent  upon  tainted 
or  defective  loyalty.  God  owed  it  to  his  own  perfec¬ 
tions,  at  least  to  publish  what  was  due  from  the  crea¬ 
ture  to  the  Creator.  Silence  on  his  part  would  be 
tantamount  almost  to  connivance,  and  would  certainly 
have  degraded  the  dignity  and  authority  of  right.  He 
can,  up  to  a  given  point,  only  meet  defection  on  the 
part  of  moral  agents  by  an  instant,  emphatic,  and 
universal  proclamation  of  what  is  due  to  himself.  It 
is  the  same  in  the  family ;  in  the  case  of  domestic 
insubordination,  either  the  rebellion  must  be  ignored, 
or  a  stern  commandment,  adequate  to  the  occasion, 
must  be  proclaimed ;  but  God  cannot,  by  his  very 
nature,  connive  at  rebellion :  he  must  therefore  de¬ 
clare  and  establish  a  law.  A  cultivated  man  knows 
what  it  is  to  be  driven  to  tell  certain  insensate  people 


12 


266 


ECCE  DEUS. 


what  is  due  to  himself  or  to  his  position  ;  actually  to 
put  it  into  plain  words :  the  coarse-grained  cannot 
see  it  unless  a  law  of  common  courtesy  be  laid  before 
them  in  letters  of  the  most  demonstrative  magnitude, 
and  the  refined  man  is  pained  at  being  driven  to  do 
what  natural  sensitiveness  ought  not  to  have  required. 
All  outward  law,  then,  except  such  as  shall  be  pres¬ 
ently  explained,  is  a  reflection  upon  man’s  incon¬ 
stancy  of  homage  and  love.  Thus  the  Decalogue 
itself  is  a  history  of  man’s  deep  shame.  Every  one 
of  the  commandments  is  really  an  indictment  against 
the  human  family.  To  think  that  such  things  as  are 
named  in  the  Decalogue  should  have  been  forced  into 
human  speech  !  Such  things  as  idolatry,  unnatural¬ 
ness,  adultery,  theft,  covetousness  !  Such  words  could 
only  have  been  extorted  from  the  lips  of  the  Holy 
God  under  a  tremendous  pressure.  That  ever  he 
should  have  been  driven  to  say  to  the  very  being 
whom  he  fashioned  in  his  own  likeness,  “  Thou  shalt 
have  no  other  gods  before  me  ;  ”  or  to  say  to  a  being 
that  was  once  lustrous  with  his  own  purity,  u  Thou 
shall  not  commit  adultery  ”  !  How  it  must  have  tor¬ 
tured  him  —  how  necessary  that  at  the  time  of  saying 
it  he  should  be  encircled  with  flames  of  fire !  He 
was  not  so  encircled  in  Eden  ;  there  he  smiled,  but 
on  Sinai  he  blushed. 

A  distinction  must  be  made  between  a  regulation 
and  a  law,  and  between  a  consequence  and  a  threat¬ 
ening.  Take  the  terms  on  which  Adam  began  life  — 
“And  the  Lord  God  commanded  the  man,  saying,  Of 
every  tree  of  the  garden  thou  mayest  freely  eat ;  but 
of  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  thou 


RELATION  OF  THE  CROSS  TO  THE  LAW.  2 67 

shalt  not  eat  of  it:  for  in  the  day  that  thou  eatest 
thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die.”  This,  we  have  said, 
is  a  regulation  or  stipulation,  simply  pointing  out 
cause  and  effect,  and  is  therefore  a  display  of  grace 
rather  than  a  formal  legal  appointment.  Everything 
was  new ;  as  the  finite  is  necessarily  limited,  God 
graciously  pointed  out  the  limit;  did  not  make  the 
limit  in  an  arbitrary  spirit,  but  pointed  it  out  as  the 
simple  necessity  of  all  created  or  conditioned  life,  and 
this  he  did  in  full  recognition  of  Adam’s  integrity. 

Law,  then,  may  be  looked  at  in  relation  to  the 
human  constitution  generally,  and-  so  far  may  be 
described  as  educational,  regulative,  and  disciplinary ; 
or,  viewed  historically,  it  may  be  regarded  as  a  moral 
protest,  a  declaration  of  affronted  righteousness,  a 
demand  of  dishonored  justice,  and  so  far  it  is  penal, 
coercive,  and  retributional.  The  law  of  Eden  was 
informational  and  regulative  ;  the  law  of  Sinai  was 
retrospective  and  penal.  By  considering  the  law 
given  in  Eden  as  purely  regulative,  we  get  a  new  and 
satisfactory  view  of  the  so-called  probation  of  Adam. 
The  terms  of  interdict  were  not  threatening,  but  ex¬ 
planatory  ;  they  contained  simply  an  announcement 
of  consequences,  —  “in  the  day  thou  eatest  thereof 
thou  shalt  surely  die.”  God  did  not  threaten  man 
with  death  as  an  arbitrary  punishment;  it  was  not 
a  matter  of  graduated  offence  and  penalty,  otherwise 
death  would  have  been  an  excessive  punishment  for 
a  first  offence,  —  it  was  an  inevitable  consequence, 
spoken  of  and  warned  against,  in  no  spirit  of  threat¬ 
ening,  but  with  all  the  care  and  tenderness  becoming 
the  divine  Father.  Why,  Adam  could  not  have  under- 


268 


ECCE  DEUS. 


stood  tkreatcnhigl  Thiok  of  it !  We  know  the  mean¬ 
ing  of  angry  tones  and  menacing  gestures,  but  what 
could  Adam  know  of  them?  Threatening  in  the  very 
first  conversation  with  God  would  have  been  the  most 
self  evident  anachronism  !  When  a  parent  says  to  a 
child,  u  In  the  day  that  thou  takest  poison  thou  shalt 
surely  die,”  he  does  not  mean  that  death  is  a  punish¬ 
ment.  but  a  consequence ;  hence  his  statement  is  not 
severe,  but  merciful  —  not  a  threatening,  but  a  reve¬ 
lation.  Nor  can  the  child  complain  of  disproportion 
between  the  act  and  the  effect  as  an  arbitrary  appoint¬ 
ment  :  it  is  the  oaitworking  and  inevitable  result  of 
a  natural  law.  This  gives  what  we  conceive  to  be 
the  right  view  of  Adam’s  probation.  It  is  not  uncom¬ 
mon  to  represent  that  probation  as  being  arranged 
upon  arbitrary  conditions,  as  if  God  had  set  a  snare 
for  the  being  on  whom  he  had  left  the  impress  of 
his  own  image ;  it  is  entirely  forgotten  in  such  a 
representation  that  there  cannot  be  two  infinites, 
that  the  finite  must  be  limited  at  some  point,  and 
that  trespass  upon  God’s  province  is  necessarily  fol¬ 
lowed  by  death.  We  re-state  this  view  because  it  is 
important  in  the  present  connection. 

To  show  that  something  more  than  a  system  of 
mere  restraints  and  penalties  was  necessary  to  meet 
the  wants  of.  fallen  men,  it  is  only  requisite  to  look 
for  a  moment  at  the  necessary  limitation  and  weak¬ 
ness  of  all  outward  law,  whether  indeed  it  be  educa¬ 
tional  or  penal.  The  householder  may  compel  every 
member  of  his  family  to  be  present  at  the  hour  of 
domestic  worship,  but  he  cannot  compel  one  of  them 
to  f  ray.  He  may  be  so  infatuated  as  to  make  a  law 


RELATION  OF  THE  CROSS  TO  THE  LAW.  269 

that  they  shall  pray,  but  they  can  in  the  very  attitude 
of  prayer  mock  the  law  and  the  lawgiver.  The  con¬ 
verse  of  this  is  also  true  :  he  may  make  a  law  that  his 
children  shall  not  pray,  yet  while  his  frown  is  darken¬ 
ing  upon  them  their  souls  may  be  holding  fellowship 
with  God.  How  inoperative,  then,  is  formal  law ! 
Its  words  are  high-swelling,  but  the  heart  is  its  own 
master ;  it  may  threaten  much,  but  the  soul  shuts 
itself  in  from  the  storm.  The  Legislature  may  re¬ 
strain  men  from  stealing,  but  the  Legislature  cannot 
make  men  honest.  Law  may  compel  men  to  close 
places  of  business  on  Sunday,  but  law  cannot  compel 
men  to  keep  holy  the  Sabbath  day.  Law  may  im¬ 
prison  rebels,  but  law  cannot  raise  rebels  into  pa¬ 
triots.  We  thus  get.  again  and  again,  a  glimpse  of 
what  is  meant  by  the  expression,  “  What  the  law 
could  not  do  in  that  it  was  weak.”  It  has  no  mastery 
over  the  heart.  It  sets  up  prisons,  penal  settlements, 
instruments  of  vengeance,  and  writes  an  elaborate 
code  ;  but,  after  all  its  efforts  to  encompass  a  great 
result,  it  is  confessedly  u  weak.”  Law  had  long  ages 
in  which  to  show  what  it  could  do  ;  under  its  stern 
and  righteous  rule  the  earth  never  became  much 
brighter  than  a  prison-house,  and  human  life  had  a 
deep  melancholy  gloom  of  conscious  servitude  about 
it.  Law  stood  at  the  outside.  Its  balance  was  fault¬ 
less,  its  sword  was  strong  and  sharp  ;  no  felon  could 
escape  it,  no  casuist  could  outwit  it,  no  hypocrite 
could  cheat  it  with  empty  promises ;  yet  •  it  was 
“weak,”  there  was  always  something  beyond  wdiich 
baffled,  or  mocked  or  despised,  its  propositions  and 
its  penalties. 


270 


ECCE  DEUS. 


The  powerlessness  of  penal  law  as  a  morally  resur- 
rectional  and  regenerative  agent  may  be  seen  from  a 
detail  of  personal  experience  given  by  the  Apostle 
Paul,  in  the  seventh  chapter  of  his  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  :  u  But  sin,  taking  occasion  by  the  command- 
ment,  wrought  in  me  all  manner  of  concupiscence  ; 
for  without  the  law  sin  was  dead.”  The  man  was 
living  in  a  kind  of  moral  chaos ;  but  in  proportion 
as  law  was  set  up  in  the  chaotic  state,  he  was  not 
merely  put  on  the  defensive  in  an  argument,  but  the 
worst  passions  of  his  nature  took  arms  against  the 
invader.  The  Milanese  hermit  is  reported  to  have 
boasted  that  he  had  not  travelled  beyond  the  city 
walls  for  sixty  years  ;  but  immediately  that  a  royal 
order  was  given  that  he  should  not  go  beyond  the 
boundary  of  the  city,  he  was  seized  with  an  irrepres¬ 
sible  desire  to  extend  his  travels.  The  child  is  often 
most  strongly  tempted  to  open  gates  which  have  been 
specially  interdicted.  If  nothing  had  been  said  about 
them,  probably  he  would  not  have  cared  to  open 
them.  u  Thou  shalt  not  ”  often  quickens  what  it  was 
meant  to  allay  or  restrain  ;  so  that  again  and  again 
we  are  thrown  upon  the  expression  —  u  What  the  law 
could  not  do  in  that  it  was  weak.”  Why  then  have 
any  law?  Because  without  it  chaos  and  death  are 
inevitable  ;  but  with  it,  notwithstanding  the  strife 
which  it  necessitates,  there  may  come  a  moral  quick¬ 
ening  which  may  lead  to  the  restoration  of  men.  To 
save  one  man  from  death  is  a  victory  worth  all  the 
battles  which  God  has  fought.  Any  movement  to¬ 
wards  life  is  better  than  the  miscalled  peace  of  death. 
Miscalled,  indeed  ;  peace  s  a  compound  term,  includ- 


RELATION  OF  THE  CROSS  TO  THE  LAW.  2^Jl 

mg  intelligence,  puiity,  order,  moral  satisfaction,  not 
one  of  which  i&  found  in  death. 

All  the  weakness  and  failure  of  outward  law  goes 
to  show  that,  if  ever  the  world  is  to  be  lifted  up, 
the  elevation  must  be  wrought  by  a  higher  force  than 
written  statutes.  The  law  has  been  doing  a  kind  of 
vexatious  work  ;  there  has  been  a  good  deal  of  school- 
mastering  about  its  tone  and  method ;  everywhere 
there  has  been  pressure,  or  correction,  or  sharp  hu¬ 
miliation  ;  nothing  genial,  sympathetic,  or  alluring, 
has  appeared  in  its  whole  course.  What  was  to 
follow?  Law  had  long  carried  its  codes  in  one  hand 
and  its  iron  rod  in  the  other;  what  should  displace  it? 
Paul  answers,  —  u  What  the  law  could  not  do  in  that 
it  was  weak,  God  sending  his  own  Son  in  the  likeness 
of  sinful  flesh,  and  for  sin,  condemned  sin  in  the  flesh, 
that  the  righteousness  of  the  law  might  be  fulfilled  in 
us  who  walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  spirit.” 
Law  was  to  give  place  to  Life.  “  God  sent  forth  bis 
Son,  made  of  a  woman,  made  under  the  law,  to 
redeem  them  that  were  under  the  law,  that  we  might 
receive  the  adoption  of  sons.”  Law  could  not  re¬ 
establish  the  filial  relation  between  God  and  men  ;  it 
could  at  best  only  put  men  in  the  position  of  scholars 
and  servants.  u  For  the  law  made  nothing  perfect, 
but  the  bringing  in  of  a  better  hope  did  ;  by  the  which 
we  draw  nigh  to  God.”  Sonship,  then,  was  the 
divine  idea  in  starting  the  corrective  remedial  meas¬ 
ures  which  are  classed  under  the  respective  designa¬ 
tions  Law  and  Gospel ;  not  mere  servitude  ;  not  mere 
innocence ;  but  a  holy,  hearty  love  of  God  as  the 
Father  of  mankind.  If  man  could  have  been  made  by 


272 


ECCE  DEUS. 


law  as  undeviating  in  his  course  as  the  star  in  its  orbit, 
such  constancy  would  have  been  a  failure,  unless  it 
had  been  the  result  of  an  intelligent  and  enthusiastic 
love  of  God, —  such  a  love  as  law  can  never  inspire, 

—  a  love  which  could  be  born  only  of  a  greater  love. 

This  throws  us  back  upon  the  weakness  of  law : 

God  has  had  no  trouble  with  the  worlds,  but  his 
children  have  cursed  him  to  his  face  !  Was  it  not  a 
great  risk  (we  put  the  inquiry  with  trembling  rever¬ 
ence)  to  create  any  existences  that  came  so  entirely 
within  the  conditions  of  God’s  essential  nature?  In 
fashioning  planets,  in  quickening  vegetation,  in  creat¬ 
ing  brutes  more  or  less  bright  in  instinct,  he  was,  so 
to  speak,  a  long  way  from  himself — far  out  of  the 
awful  circle  which  is  specifically  divine ;  but,  when  he 
set  his  hand  to  the  fashioning  of  man ,  a  creature  that 
should  be  distinctively  z'/z  his  own  ii7iage  and  likeness , 
he  confined  himself  within  the  interior  of  that  circle  ! 
Think  of  what  he  proposed  in  making  man :  the 
creature  was  to  be  made  in  his  own  image,  inspired 
with  his  own  breath,  and  admitted  to  his  very  pres¬ 
ence  for  fellowship.  Now  came  the  awful  problem, — 
How  much  can  man  contain  of  God  without  seeking 
to  co7itain  more ?  The  sun  could  not  seek  to  extend 
his  empire ;  the  stars  never  mutinied  against  their 
King ;  in  all  the  uproar  of  the  seas  there  was  no  tone 
of  discontent :  but  this  creature,  this  God  in  miniature 

—  will  he  ever  plot  against  his  Maker,  will  he  make 
confusion  amid  the  peaceful  order  of  the  universe? 
The  higher  the  life,  the  higher  the  difficulty.  Ascen¬ 
sion  means  complication.  Man  has  less  difficulty 
with  dead  wood  than  with  living  wood  ;  less  difficulty 


RELATION  OF  THE  CROSS  TO  THE  LAW.  273 

with  vegetable  life  than  with  animal  life ;  less  dif¬ 
ficulty  with  a  beast  of  burden  than  with  the  child  that 
reflects  his  own  image.  So  with  God.  His  difficulty, 
so  to  speak,  was  at  the  top,  not  at  the  bottom  of  crea¬ 
tion.  It  was  a  child,  not  a  beast,  that  broke  the 
boundary.  What  was  to  be  done,  then?  In  the  first 
instance,  prior  to  the  trespass,  while  the  glory  of  the 
Divine  image  lingered  on  the  human  countenance, 
there  was  law  regulative  and  educational,  —  law  that 
wouH  have  been  a  defence  of  liberty,  and  would  have 
promoted  a  continual  and  blessed  growth  in  divine 
strength,  favor,  and  honor,  —  law  that  would  have  re¬ 
strained  only  as  a  father’s  loving  grasp  would  restrain 
from  the  edge  of  the  chasm,  or  the  nest  of  the  serpent. 
After  this  came  law  judicial  and  penal.  God  said  in 
deeds  what  he  said  in  the  first  commandment  from 
Sinai.  He  showed  that  there  could  be  but  one  God, 
and  taught  the  ambitious  rival  that  the  power  which 
created  him  could  limit  his  functions,  and  burn  him  in 
unquenchable  fire.  It  must  have  been  hard  for  God 
to  say  this  to  his  human  child  ;  the  words  affect  us  as 
we  see  them  on  the  page  —  what  must  their  utterance 
have  cost  the  heart  of  God?  It  was  necessary  to  say 
them.  God  could  not  vacate  the  throne,  and  leave 
the  universe  to  be  overrun  by  the  anarchic  spirit.  A 
{  otest  must  be  forthcoming.  Hence  came  all  that 
elaborate,  stern,  magisterial  law ,  back  of  which  lies 
the  never-dying  worm. 

The  history  of  ages  is  at  hand,  so  that  no  difficulty 
need  be  felt  in  estimating  the  effect  of  this  law  upon 
the  moral  growth  of  man.  To  do  this,  in  outline,  will 
help  to  illustrate  the  value  of  the  cross,  and  to  dispel 

12  * 


274 


ECCE  DEUS. 


illusions  respecting  a  merely  legal  service.  The  ques¬ 
tion  resolves  itself  into  one  of  evidence.  How  does 
the  testimony  of  the  acutest  students  of  human  nature 
tend?  A  citation  or  two  from  the  Christian  writings 
will  answer  the  inquiry  :  u  By  the  deeds  of  the  law 
there  shall  no  flesh  be  justified  in  his  sight ;  ”  u  The 
law  having  a  shadow  of  good  things  to  come,  and  not 
the  very  image  of  the  things,  can  never,  with  those 
sacrifices  which  they  offered  year  by  year  continually, 
make  the  comers  thereunto  perfect ;  ”  “  If  there  had 
been  a  law  given  which  could  have  given  life,  verily 
righteousness  should  have  been  bv  the  law.”  What  is 
this  but  a  repetition  of  the  expression,  u  What  the  law 
coidd  not  do  in  that  it  was  weak”?  Is  any  man  at 
liberty  to  treat  the  verdicts  of  history  with  contempt, 
and  to  try  to  live  by  the  law  as  if  its  weakness  had 
never  been  proved  ? 

Now  arises  the  important  question  hinted  in  the 
title  of  this  chapter  —  What  is  the  Relation  of  Christ’s 
Cross  to  the  Law?  Have  those  who  have  pat  their 
faith  in  Christ  no  more  to  do  with  law  of  any  kind? 
Is  the  Christian  life  anarchic?  This  class  of  inquiry 
seems  to  have  occupied  the  attention  of  Paul  a  good 
deal,  and  while  discussing  the  subject  he  makes  copi¬ 
ous  citations  from  his  own  experience  :  thus  he  tells 
the  Romans — -  “  The  law  of  the  spirit  of  life  in  Christ 
Jesus  hath  made  me  free  from  the  law  of  sin  and 
death.”  There  are  two  laws  here  spoken  of,  —  the 
one  is  said  to  make  free  from  the  other,  —  the  law  of 
life  liberates  from  the  law  of  death.  The  same  writer 
speaks  of  two  services,  respectively  termed  u  the  old¬ 
ness  of  the  letter”  and  “the  newness  of  the  spirit,” 


RELATION  OF  THE  CROSS  TO  THE  LAW.  2*]$ 

and  rejoices  that  he  is  an  able  minister  of  the  New 
Testament,  “  not  of  the  letter,  but  of  the  spirit,  for  the 
letter  killeth,  but  the  spirit  giveth  life.”  This  shows 
somewhat  of  the  new  relation  in  which  Christ’s  cross 
has  set  Christians  towards  law.  They  no  longer  work 
from  the  outward  commandment,  but  from  the  inward 
impulse ;  the  shalt  of  law  gives  way  to  the  must  of 
love,  —  a  mightier  tyranny,  mightier  because  making 
no  pretensions  to  might.  The  difference  between  the 
letter  and  the  spirit  as  regulating  service  is  seen  in 
common  life ;  the  hireling  says,  u  It  is  my  duty”  the 
child  says,  u  It  is  my  delight ;”  the  hireling  asks,  “  Is 
it  so  nominated  in  the  bond?”  the  child  says,  “It  is 
more  blessed  to  give  than  to  receive.”  Duty  weighs 
and  measures  all  its  services ;  love  can  never  do 
enough,  —  it  knows  nothing  of  quantity;  it  proceeds 
upon  the  principle  that  nothing  has  been  given  where 
aught  has  been  withheld. 

What,  then,  is  meant  by  being  delivered  from  the 
law?  Take  one  of  the  commandments,  say  —  “  Thou 
shalt  not  steal :  ”  —  is  the  Christian  delivered  from  that, 
—  is  it  no  longer  binding  upon  him?  Certainly  he  is 
delivered  from  it  in  the  sense  of  not  keeping  it  “  in  the 
oldness  of  the  letter,”  but  he  can  never  cease  to  keep 
it  “  in  the  newness  of  the  spirit.”  Obviously,  this 
command,  in  its  literal  expression,  could  apply  only 
to  such  as  are  in  the  very  lowest  moral  condition  ;  it 
goes  as  low  down  in  the  moral  scale  as  possible,  — 
down  to  the  elemental  line.  So  with  all  the  other  com¬ 
mandments.  “  These  laws  (against  robbery  and  mur¬ 
der),  to  be  sure,  were  not  obsolete,  but  the  better  class 
of  men  had  been  raised  to  an  elevation  of  goodness  at 


ECCE  DEUS. 


27  6 

which  they  were  absolutely  unassailable  by  temptations 
to  commit  them.”  *  Christ’s  cross  delivers  Christians 
from  what  may  be  termed  moral  drudgery  ;  they  are 
not  oppressed  and  pined  serfs,  but  freemen  and  fellow- 
heirs,  serving  their  Lord  Christ  with  all  gladness  of 
heart.  Let  a  Christian  be  told  as  he  is  proceeding 
with  the  business  of  the  day  that  he  must  not  steal ,  and 
at  once  he  will  regard  the  remark  as  an  affront  or  a 
pleasantry.  His  soul  is  honest;  not  honest  merely  in 
the  rough  sense  of  not  picking  pockets,  but  in  all  the 
finest  shades  of  that  honesty  which  will  not  withhold  a 
good  opinion  where  it  is  due,  which  will  not  strain  a 
word  to  the  injury  of  any  human  creature,  which  will 
not  steal  any  man’s  reputation,  or  plunder  any  man  of 
his  righteous  claims  to  consideration  and  honor.  The 
man  who  is  truly  possessor  of  u  the  spirit  of  life  in 
Christ  Jesus”  cannot  have  any  other  gods  but  his 
Father  in  heaven;  cannot  commit  adultery;  cannot 
bear  false  witness  ;  cannot  kill ;  cannot  steal.  Such  a 
man  comes  down  upon  all  the  exercises  and  avocations 
of  life  from  a  high  altitude  of  wise  and  loving  homage 
to  the  Son  of  God,  and  expounds  practically  the  say¬ 
ing  of  an  apostle  —  “Whosoever  is  born  of  God  sin- 
neth  not,  but  he  that  is  begotten  of  God  keepeth  him¬ 
self,  and  that  wicked  one  toucheth  him  not.”  If  it  be 
urged  that  many  professing  Christians  do  break  the 
Commandments,  notwithstanding  high  public  preten¬ 
sions,  the  apostle  just  quoted  gives  the  only  true  answer 
—  “If. a  man  say,  I  love  God,  and  hateth  his  brother, 
he  is  a  liar,”  —  and  there  is  an  end  of  that  hypocrisy. 
Paul,  too,  designates  such  professors  “  enemies  of  the 

*  Ecce  Homo ,  p.  200. 


RELATION  OF  THE  CROSS  TO  THE  LAW.  277 

cross  of  Christ,”  and  u  weeps”  as  he  writes  of  them  in 
his  letter  to  the  Philippians. 

The  meaning  of  Christian  freedom  from  “  the  law 
of  sin  and  death,”  can  be  approached  only  when  the 
heart  is  in  the  highest  ecstasy  of  love,  when  the  soul 
rises  into  the  unclouded  light  of  full  communion  with 
God,  and  forgets  all  other  boasting  in  glorying  in  the 
cross.  Such  experiences  are  rare,  by  reason  of  the 
weakness  of  the  flesh  ;  the  body  could  not  long  endure 
such  a  strain  as  the  highest  joy  puts  upon  it ;  yet,  in 
the  moment  of  passionate  love,  when  the  soul  is  at  its 
full  stretch  of  rapture,  we  feel  how  chilling  and  inade¬ 
quate  is  the  service  required  by  written  statutes:  the 
heart  spurns  the  niggardly  dole,  and  cries,  with  no 
poetic  license,  but  with  literal  simplicity  of  meaning, 
“  I  count  all  things  loss  for  the  excellency  of  the  knowl¬ 
edge  of  Christ  Jesus  my  Lord.”  It  does  not  require  to 
be  taken  to  u  the  mount  that  might  be  touched”  that 
it  may  learn  its  duty  towards  God  ;  it  has  condensed 
the  Ten  Commandments  into  one  word,  and  that  word 
itself  but  a  syllable,  u  Love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the 
law.”  This  love,  which  subdues  and  tones  the  whole 
life,  nevei  could  have  been  inspired  by  law .  Legal 
enactments  leave  no  scope  for  the  play  of  the  affec¬ 
tions  ;  they  show  the  particulars  and  the  aggregate, 
and  demand  payment  to  the  uttermost  farthing.  Love 
comes  from  personal  contact  with  the  all-loving  Christ, 
who  gave  himself  a  sacrifice  unto  God  for  man’s  sake. 
Love  can  be  learned  only  at  the  Cross.  Strange  as  it 
may  appear,  the  loving  apostle  has  marked  this  love 
as  a  corollary.  He  says,  “We  love  him  because  he 
first  loved  us :  ”  how  delicate  is  that  logical  form  J 


278 


ECCE  DEUS. 


Does  this  love,  then,  exempt  us  from  keeping  com¬ 
mandments?  By  no  means.  But  now  we  come  upon 
the  commandments  in  another  spirit  and  from  another 
point.  “  This  is  the  love  of  God  ;  that  we  keep  his 
commandments,  and  his  commandments  are  not  griev¬ 
ous  ;  ”  they  demand  no  servile  obedience,  they  are  done 
by  the  heart  and  not  merely  by  the  hand.  “  If  a  man 
love  me,  he  will  keep  my  words,  and  my  Father  will 
love  him,  and  we  will  come  unto  him,  and  make  our 
abode  with  him.”  Amid  such  love  how  can  it  be 
otherwise  than  that  the  yoke  should  be  easy  and  the 
burden  light?  Under  the  inspiration  of  such  love,  in¬ 
stead  of  avoiding  commandments  we  inquire  diligently 
for  them  ;  constantly  the  heart  is  asking,  u  Lord,  what 
wilt  thou  have  me  to  do  ?  ”  u  And  whatsoever  we  ask, 
we  receive  of  him,  because  we  keep  his  command 
ments,  and  do  those  things  that  are  pleasing  in  his 
sight.” 

Law  regulative  and  educational,  and  law  judicial 
and  penal,  is  an  expression  of  the  divine  purpose  ac¬ 
commodated  to  human  limitation  and  human  guilt. 
All  incomplete  life  must  be  placed  under  tutors  and 
governors,  under  formal  statutes  and  decrees.  Young 
life  lives  by  the  senses,  and  must,  therefore,  have  cor¬ 
responding  arrangements  made  for  its  defence  and  edi¬ 
fication  ;  appeals  must  be  made  to  the  eye  and  the  ear, 
and,  if  need  be,  the  flesh  must  feel  the  sharpness  of  the 
penal  rod.  All  this  comes  of  incompleteness.  Life  is 
not  spheral ;  at  first  it  is  but  an  arc,  and  law  assists  in 
the  extension  of  the  periphery,  and  corrects,  sometimes 
severely,  every  aberration  of  the  unsteady  or  unwilling 
hand.  This  external  adaptation  to  human  inconv 


RELATION  OF  THE  CROSS  TO  THE  LAW.  279 

pleteness  is  not  required  by  those  who  are  in  Christ, 
for  in  him  “  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead 
bodily,”  and  we  “  are  complete  in  him,”  complete  in 
every  sense  ;  complete  beyond  the  small  entirety  which 
the  dreams  of  technical  theology  have  comprehended.  ✓ 
This  is  what  Jesus  Christ  came  to  fulfil.  u  I  am  come 
that  they  might  have  life,  and  that  they  might  have  it 
more  abundantly  ;  ”  might  have  it  completely  ;  might 
so  have  it  as  to  be  beyond  the  reach  of  death  ;  might 
so  have  it  as  to  bring  “  the  power  of  an  endless  life  ” 
to  bear  upon  “  the  things  which  are  seen  and  tem¬ 
poral.”  This  great  bestowment  of  life  —  in  other 
words,  this  vast  increase  of  manhood  —  was  rendered 
possible  only  by  the  cross  of  Christ,  and  the  cruci¬ 
fixion  which  we  endure  upon  it:  “Our  old  man  is 
crucified  with  him,  that  the  body  of  sin  might  be  de¬ 
stroyed,  that  henceforth  we  should  not  serve  sin.” 
Christ  said  that  he  would  “  draw  all  men  to  him,”  “  if 
he  was  lifted  up  from  the  earth  ;  ”  draw  all  men  to 
him  to  be  crucified  with  him,  for  men  cannot  be  men 
in  the  highest  sense  until  they  have  undergone  cruci¬ 
fixion.  Paul  said :  “  I  am  crucified  with  Christ.” 
No  man  can  be  morally  crucified  without  Christ ;  he 
alone  made  crucifixion  possible  ;  and  only  by  joint 
crucifixion  with  him  are  we  made  free  from  “  the  law 
of  sin  and  death,”  and  from  that  “  other  law  warring 
in  our  members,”  for  “  they  that  are  Christ’s  have  cru¬ 
cified  the  flesh  with  the  affections  and  lusts,”  and  can 
understand  the  apostle  when  he  inquires,  with  some¬ 
what  of  amazement  if  not  of  anger  in  his  tone,  “  If 
ye  be  dead  with  Christ  in  the  rudiments  of  the  world, 


ECCE  DEUS. 


280 

why,  as  though  living  in  the  world,  are  ye  subject 
to  ordinances  ?  ”  He  means  that,  if  they  had  been 
44  planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  his  death,”  they 
would  have  been  planted  44  also  in  the  likeness  of  his 
resurrection,”  and  so  have  had  much  life,  which  means 
much  liberty.  The  whole  is  a  question  of  life ,  —  the 
vitality  of  man  had  run  down  to  a  minimum,  and 
could  be  increased  only  by  the  infusion  of  Jesus  Christ’s 
life  ;  and  as  that  began  to  operate  each  could  say,  “  I 
live,  yet  not  I,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me.”  44 1  can  do  all 
things  through  Christ  which  strengtheneth  me.” 

Here,  then,  we  obtain  an  idea  of  the  influence  of 
Christ’s  cross  upon  the  law  which  God  gave  to  the 
earlier  generations.  It  magnifies  that  law  and  makes 
it  honorable,  yet  delivers  those  who  accept  Jesus  Christ 
as  their  Saviour  from  the  bondage  of  the  letter.  The 
law  of  Sinai,  comprehending,  as  it  did,  worship,  nat¬ 
ural  affection,  self-discipline,  and  all  social  virtues, 
received  a  deeper  and  wider  interpretation  from  the 
work  of  Christ.  It  ceased,  in  the  case  of  the  true 
Christian,  to  be  a  formal  externalism,  and  became  a 
living  and  gracious  power  in  the  heart.  It  so  far,  too, 
quickened  and  strengthened  man’s  power  of  under¬ 
standing  the  nature  of  God,  that  man  needed  not  to 
study  the  letter  with  painful  desire  to  reduce  its  mean¬ 
ing  to  the  utmost  so  as  to  accommodate  his  own  weak¬ 
ness,  but  inspired  him  with  a  heroic  and  unconquerable 
determination  to  44  know  nothing  among  men  but  Jesus 
Christ  and  him  crucified,”  and  to  *4  spend  and  be  spent  ” 
in  the  service  of  the  Son  of  God.  Instead  of  throw¬ 
ing  the  commandments  into  contempt,  it  gave  them  a 


RELATION  OF  THE  CROSS  TO  THE  LAW.  28 1 

higher  moral  status,  and  even  Sinai  itself  was  shorn 
of  its  greatest  terrors  when  viewed  from  the  elevation 
of  the  cross.  Love  was  really  the  reason  of  the  law, 
though  the  law  looked  like  an  expression  of  anger. 
We  see  this,  now  that  we  love  more  ;  love  is  the  best 
interpreter  of  God,  for  u  God  is  love.” 

A  practical  point  arises  here  :  the  cynic  hears  of  an 
ideal,  and  contemptuously  contrasts  it  with  the  actual 
life  of  Christians.  With  the  scorn  which  only  cynical 
natures  can  feel  or  simulate,  he  points  to  the  errors 
and  weakness  of  men  who  profess  to  be  in  Christ,  and 
asks  if  these  are  the  fruits  of  the  law  of  the  Spirit  of 
Christ  Jesus.  It  is  the  inquiry  of  a  man  who  mistakes 
an  atom  for  a  globe.  The  experience  of  Paul  is  the 
best  reply:  “I  delight  in  the  law  of  God  after  the 
inward  man,  but  I  see  another  law  in  my  members, 
warring  against  the  law  of  my  mind,  and  bringing  me 
into  captivity  to  the  law  of  sin  which  is  in  my  mem¬ 
bers.”  A  distinction  must  be  made  between  the  sins 
which  have  the  full  consent  of  the  mind  and  those 
which  arise  from  the  weakness  of  the  flesh  ;  these  will 
be  conquered  as  the  spirit  becomes  stronger.  Paul 
anticipates  the  possible  use  which  cynics  and  hypo¬ 
crites  may  make  of  his  reasoning,  and  inquires,  u  Shall 
we  sin  because  we  are  not  under  the  law,  but  under 
grace?”  If  any  objector  should  imagine  that  Paul 
grants  liberty  to  sin,  let  him  ponder  Paul’s  words : 
u  Let  not  sin  therefore  reign  in  your  mortal  body,  that 
ye  should  obey  it  in  the  lusts  thereof,  neither  yield  ye 
your  members  as  instruments  of  unrighteousness  unto 
sin,  but  yield  yourselves  unto  God,  as  those  that  are 


282 


ECCE  DEUS. 


alive  from  the  dead,  and  your  members  as  insti aments 
of  righteousness  unto  God.”  Thus  liberty  is  guarded  ; 
thus  an  unholy  use  of  privilege  is  forbidden,  and  the 
libertine  must  go  elsewhere  than  to  Christ’s  Gospel  if 
he  would  bow  down  to  the  bad  sovereignty  of  his  own 
passions. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 


RELATION  OF  THE  CROSS  TO  PRACTICAL  MORALS. 

X 

ARE  men  at  liberty  to  live  as  though  the  cross  of 
Jesus  Christ  had  never  been  introduced  into 
human  history?  Or  does  the  very  fact  of  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  that  cross  involve  responsibility  on  the  part  of 
men?  This  inquiry  leads  to  the  consideration  of  the 
practical  aspects  of  Christ’s  work. 

We  have  said  that  Christ’s  morality  was  the  active 
side  of  his  theology  ;  —  not  something  added  to  it,  or 
made  to  be  collateral  with  it,  but  essentially  part  of  it, 
so  essentially  as  to  have  no  existence  without  it.  This 
position  is  amply  sustained  by  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount.  One  expression  in  that  sermon  seems  to 
govern  the  whole  doctrine ;  the  expression  occurs 
again  and  again,  with  so  much  gravity  that  the  hear¬ 
ers  must  have  felt  themselves  in  immediate  contact 
with  the  divine  mind  :  the  words  are  —  “  Father  which 
is  in  heaven.”  It  is  interesting  to  mark  with  what 
ease  Jesus  Christ  finds  his  way  from  the  commonest 
subjects  of  his  discourse  to  his  Father,  and  how  he 
varies  the  expression  from  my  Father  to  your  Father, 
as  if  he  were  addressing  his  younger  brothers.  For 
example,  when  he  teaches  the  love  of  enemies,  he 
gives  as  the  reason  —  u  That  ye  may  be  the  children 
of  youi  Father  which  is  in  heaven  ;  ”  —  when  he  refers 


ECCE  DEUS. 


2  84 

to  the  dispositions  and  courtesies  of  the  Christian  life, 
inculcating  a  deeper  love  and  a  wider  salutation  than 
the  publicans  exemplified,  he  says,  u  Be  ye  therefore 
perfect,  even  as  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven  is 
perfect ;  ”  —  when  he  teaches  respecting  alms,  and 
fasting,  and  prayer,  he  warns  his  disciples  against  so 
acting  as  to  u  have  no  reward  of  your  Father  which  is 
in  heaven ;  ” —  and  when  he  refers  to  the  conditions 
of  entrance  into  the  heavenly  kingdom,  he  states  ex¬ 
plicitly  that  “  not  every  one  that  saith,  Lord,  Lord, 
shall  enter,  but  he  that  doeth  the  will  of  my  Father 
which  is  in  heaven.”  This  lofty  expression  can  alone 
interpret  the  morality  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount; 
it  is  a  heavenly  morality  ;  the  sources  of  its  inspiration 
and  the  rewards  of  its  practice  are  divine.  There  is 
nothing  earthly  in  the  tone  ;  there  is  nothing  earthly 
in  the  motive ;  there  is  nothing  earthly  in  the  result. 

Look  for  a  moment  at  the  complete  unselfishness  of 
the  manhood  that  would  be  trained  bv  such  doctrine. 

J 

From  beginning  to  end,  the  discourse  leads  man  away 
from  himself ;  and  to  what  does  it  lead  him?  It  leads 
him  to  the  cross:  throughout  we  have  discipline, 
self-denial,  crucifixion.  The  cross  of  Christ  was  as 
truly,  though  not  as  visibly,  set  up  on  this  mountain 
as  on  Calvary.  Christ  graduated  the  revelation  of  the 
cross  so  wisely  that  at  first  men  did  not  see  it,  but  after 
the  full  revelation  came,  every  introductory  word  ac¬ 
quired  its  true  meaning,  and  was  seen  in  its  relation 
towards  the  great  end.  A  few  references  will  show 
how  the  cross  was  to  be  the  agent  in  discipline,  and 
how  the  whole  life  of  man  was  to  be  constantly  tried 
by  the  test  of  crucifixion.  The  offending  right  eye  is 


RELATION  OF  THE  CROSS  TO  PRACTICAL  MORALS.  285 

to  be  plucked  out ;  the  offending  hand  is  to  be  cut  off ; 
the  man  is  to  go  to  the  offended  brother,  not  to  wait  for 
the  offended  brother  to  come  to  him  ;  the  natural  love 
of  display  is  to  be  mortified,  so  that  giving,  fasting,  and 
praying  may  be  done  in  secret ;  thought  of  life  is  to  be 
given  up  ;  perishable  treasures  are  not  to  be  amassed  ; 
and  men  are  to  prepare  for  a  strait  gate  and  a  narrow 
way.  What  is  all  this  but  the  cross?  What  but  the 
spirit  of  crucifixion  can  bring  a  man  to  unresisting 
suffering,  to  give  his  cloak  as  well  as  his  coat,  to  go 
two  miles  instead  of  one,  to  give  and  lend  to  those 
who  ask  and  borrow?  These  “sayings”  cannot  be 
understood  until  crucifixion  has  been  endured.  They 
were,  therefore,  hard  words  with  which  to  open  a 
missipn  among  selfish  men,  and  their  utterance  at  an 
early  period  in  his  ministry  instead  of  its  close  shows 
incidentally  how  Christ  came  to  put  the  first  last  and 
the  last  first.  It  has  been  said  that  what  is  known  as 
the  evangelical  element  is  absent  from  the  Sermon  oil 
the  Mount ;  but  no  misconception  can  be  greater. 
Let  any  mere  theorist  attempt  to  u  do  these  sayings  of 
mine,”  and  he  will  find  that  through  every  step  of  the 
process  he  will  require  the  help  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
to  feel  that  is  to  be  conscious  of  the  necessity  of  the 
evangelical  element.  At  this  point  of  consciousness 
the  dominion  of  self  is  broken  up  ;  the  theorist  feels 
his  weakness,  and  reaches  the  crisis  when  his  destiny 
is  determined,  —  he  must  then  build  his  house  either 
on  the  rock  or  on  the  sand.  It  is  to  be  observed  that 
Jesus  Christ  does  not  offer  his  sermon  as  a  theory  of 
morals,  but  as  a  moral  code  which  is  to  be  embodied 
in  actual  life  ;  so  long  as  men  look  at  it  as  a  theory, 


2S6 


ECCE  DEUS. 


they  will  expose  themselves  to  all  the  dangers  of  par¬ 
tial  and  misguided  speculation,  but  when  they  attempt 
to  do  it,  they  will  be  driven  to  ask  the  speaker  himself 
how  it  is  to  be  done,  for  he  only  can  show  how  a  man 
can  conquer  his  own  nature  and  set  at  defiance  the 
bad  influences  of  unchristian  society.  The  first  thing, 
therefore,  that  is  done  in  any  honest  attempt  to  carry 
Christ’s  doctrines  into  practice  is  to  fight  a  decisive 
battle  with  one’s  own  selfishness.  We  begin  where 
Christ  began  ;  he  began  at  the  cross,  and,  from  that 
eminence  of  suffering  love,  taught  that  self-denial  was 
the  indispensable  condition  of  membership  in  his  so¬ 
ciety. 

But  is  the  motive  suggested  by  Jesus  Christ  suffi¬ 
cient  to  enable  a  man  to  overcome  opposing  forces?  — 
or  is  man  called  to  an  impracticable  morality?  Christ 
suggests  one  motive,  —  the  reproduction  of  the  nature 
of  God:  11  Be  ye  therefore  perfect,  even  as  your  Father 
in  heaven  is  perfect ;  ”  u  that  ye  may  be  the  children 
of  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven.”  He  thus  says 
that  the  man  who  attempts  to  carry  out  his  morality 
will  be  moving  towards  God,  will  be  getting  away 
from  the  earthly  and  advancing  towards  the  heavenly ; 
and  lest  the  man  should  fail  as  he  thinks  of  his  own 
ignorance  and  weakness,  Jesus  Christ  tells  him  that 
all  the  resources  of  God  are  at  his  disposal ;  he  has 
but  to  ask,  that  he  may  receive,  —  but  to  seek,  that  he 
may  find  ;  and  if  any  misgiving  should  arise  as  to  the 
willingness  of  God  to  help  him  by  heavenly  gifts,  he 
is  chided  by  these  words :  u  If  ye  then,  being  evil, 
know  how  to  give  good  gifts  unto  your  children,  how 
much  more  shall  your  heavenly  Father  give  the  Holy 


RELATION  OF  THE  CROSS  TO  PRACTICAL  MORALS.  2S7 

Spirit  to  them  that  ask  him?”  Now,  is  it  worth 
while  to  be  like  God?  The  great  issue  which  Jesus 
Christ  puts  before  men  is,  go  higher,  or  go  lower  ;  be 
the  children  of  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven,  or 
grow  away  from  him  into  more  and  more  hideous 
moral  decrepitude  ;  —  if  you  do  these  sayings  of  mine, 
you  shall  be  like  God  ;  if  you  do  them  not,  you  shall 
be  carried  away  by  the  floods  and  the  storm. 

In  general  terms,  the  case  may  be  put  thus  :  In  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  Jesus  Christ  lays  down  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  complete  unselfishness  as  the  cardinal  doctrine 
of  his  kingdom,  and  assures  all  who  wish  to  learn  that 
doctrine  that  they  may  look  to  God  for  every  help  they 
can  ever  require.  The  term  unselfishness,  as  here 
employed,  is  used  in  the  inclusive  sense  of  mortifying 
bad  personal  instincts  and  extending  to  others  the 
most  magnanimous  and  beneficent  consideration. 
Man  comes  to  the  latter  through  the  former.  God 
has  no  occasion  to  do  the  former ;  his  nature  is  love, 
and  every  motion  towards  love  is  consequently  a  mo¬ 
tion  towards  himself.  This  is  a  general  view  of  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount ;  it  may  be  useful  to  sustain  it 
by  going  a  little  into  detail. 

The  description  of  the  “  blessed  ”  with  which  the 
sermon  opens  is  a  magnificent  display  of  conquest 
over  self.  The  “poor  in  spirit”  are  first  blessed; 
they  are  empty  of  pride,  of  self-defence,  of  self-satis¬ 
faction  ;  they  see  themselves  in  their  precise  relation 
to  God,  and  before  him  they  utter  no  boast:  the 
mourners,  the  meek,  and  the  merciful  are  entirely 
unoccupied  with  self.  When  a  man  is  his  own  god, 
why  should  he  mourn?  When  a  man  is  sovereign, 


288 


ECCE  T)EUS. 


why  should  he  be  meek?  When  a  man  is  self-en¬ 
closed,  why  should  he  be  merciful?  They  who  hun¬ 
ger  and  thirst  after  righteousness  plainly  declare  that 
they  drink  not  of  their  own  well,  but  go  out  of  them¬ 
selves  for  spiritual  satisfaction  :  the  pure  in  heart  and 
the  peacemakers  happily  combine  reverence  for  God 
with  goodwill  towards  men,  both  of  which  are  incom¬ 
patible  with  self-idolatry  ;  and  “  they  which  are  perse¬ 
cuted  for  righteousness’  sake  ”  are  evidently  superior 
to  selfish  indulgence  and  comfort.  Meekness,  mercy, 
purity,  and  peace  ;  self-poverty,  mourning,  desire  after 
righteousness,  and  uncomplaining  suffering  for  Christ’s 
sake,  —  all  lie  quite  beyond  the  sphere  of  common  at¬ 
tainment ;  yet  Christ  calls  them,  so  to  speak,  and  them 
alone,  around  him,  to  be  crowned  openly  with  his 
blessing.  Is  there  a  single  stain  of  selfishness  in  any 
one  of  them  ?  All  the  blessed  men  are  good  men  ;  all 
the  good  men  partake  of  the  very  nature  of  him  who 
blesses  them.  The  Beatitudes  constitute  a  complete 
delineation  of  Jesus  Christ  himself :  he  was  poor  in 
spirit ;  he  mourned  ;  he  was  meek,  merciful,  pure  in 
heart,  and  peaceful :  his  meat  and  his  drink  were  to 
do  his  Father’s  will ;  and  he  was  pre-eminent  among 
those  who  were  persecuted  for  righteousness’  sake. 
His  power  was  thus  derived  from  his  own  enjoyment 
of  blessing,  so  that  he  could,  in  the  deepest  sense,  say, 
“  The  words  that  I  speak  unto  you,  they  are  spirit, 
and  they  are  life.”  The  blessed  man  himself  told  how 
other  men  might  be  blessed.  He  preached,  not  a  ser¬ 
mon  that  he  had  learned,  but  a  sermon  that  he  had 
lived.  What  would  be  the  effect  if  society  were  com¬ 
posed  of  such  men  as  are  described  in  the  Beatitudes'* 


RELATION  OF  THE  CROSS  TO  PRACTICAL  MORALS.  289 

This  is  Christ’s  aim,  and  its  loftiness  warrants  his  fol¬ 
lowers  in  claiming  for  Jesus  Christ’s  doctrine  the  most 
practical  moral  design. 

The  manner  in  which  he  calls  his  disciples  to  the 
accomplishment  of  this  design  is  marked  by  the  high¬ 
est  wisdom.  With  what  appears  to  us  as  a  most 
startling  abruptness,  he  tells  them  that  they  are  the 
salt  of  the  earth,  and  the  light  of  the  world ;  what 
more,  then,  could  be  required  of  them?  Instead  of 
abusing  them,  he  told  them  what  high  things  were 
expected  of  them,  and  by  so  much  he  gave  them 
power  to  achieve  them.  He  first  recognized  the  dig¬ 
nity  and  force  of  manhood,  and  then  with  inimitable 
grace  remarked  upon  the  uses  to  which  high  powers 
might  be  put.  He  said,  u  Ye  are  the  salt  of  the  earth, 
but  remember  that  salt  may  lose  its  savor ;  ye  are  the 
light  of  the  world,  but  remember  that  a  candle  may 
be  put  under  a  bushel.”  Here  is  a  beautiful  distinc¬ 
tion  between  the  essential  and  the  accidental,  — 
between  the  capacities  of  human  nature  and  the  uses 
to  which  those  capacities  may  be  put.  Men  are  first 
to  be  encouraged,  then  to  be  directed  ;  their  native 
dignity  is  to  be  saved  from  bad  applications  ;  and  they 
are  to  feel  the  responsibility  of  possessing  a  great  na¬ 
ture.  Men  are  not  to  be  trained  by  being  scoffed  at, 
nor  are  they  to  be  stimulated  by  any  attack  confined 
merely  to  their  practical  abuses.  Christ  begins  with 
the  word  of  honor,  and  then  passes  to  the  word  of 
caution  :  he  says,  “  You  are  great,  don’t  prostitute 
your  greatness ;  you  are  influential,  don’t  lose  your 
influence.”  What  would  be  the  effect  of  such  teach¬ 
ing  upon  the  moral  development  of  society?  It  would 


290 


ECCE  DEUS. 


give  men  a  right  conception  of  their  powers,  and  pre¬ 
pare  them  for  divine  counsels  as  to  their  occupation. 
This  is  what  Jesus  Christ  himself  proposes  to  do.  He 
saves  the  savor  of  the  salt,  and  puts  the  light  where  it 
can  give  light  to  all  that  are  in  the  house.  Do  the 
non -Christian  moralists  purpose  any  higher  work?  It 
can  only  be  for  want  of  careful  examination  of  his 
purposes  and  methods,  that  they  hesitate  to  take  tl  eir 
places  in  the  school  of  Jesus  Christ.  It  should  be 
remembered,  too,  that  Christ  does  not  throw  discredit 
upon>the  dispensations  which  he  came  to  fulfil  and 
supersede.  He  would  not  have  it  thought  that  he 
came  to  destroy  the  law  or  the  prophets,  nor  would 
he  have  one  of  the  least  of  these  commandments  set 
at  nought.  Still,  the  righteousness  of  the  Scribes  and 
Pharisees  was  to  be  exceeded,  otherwise  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  could  not  be  entered.  In  this  twofold  represen¬ 
tation,  Jesus  Christ  honored  human  nature,  and  hon¬ 
ored  the  means  of  educating  it,  which  had  prevailed 
from  the  giving  of  the  law  and  the  ministry  of  the 
prophets.  He  did  not  accuse  them  of  error ;  he 
pointed  out  their  incompleteness.  He  would  not 
allow  men  to  start  off  on  the  plea  that  if  the  law  had 
been  better  they  would  have  been  better  too  :  the  law 
was  held  in  its  integrity  ;  it  was  good  for  the  whole 
period  in  which  God  designed  it  to  be  operative  ;  still 
it  was  only  a  schoolmaster  to  bring  men  to  Christ,  and 
now  the  higher  teacher  began  the  higher  education. 

The  base  of  that  education  was  intensely  spiritual ; 
—  uncaused  anger  he  declared  to  be  murder,  lustful 
desires  he  set  down  as  adultery.  He  gave,  too,  deeper 
interpretations  of  the  maxims  and  laws  on  which 


RELATION  OF  THE  CROSS  TO  PRACTICAL  MORALS.  2C)1 

human  intercourse  had  hitherto  proceeded  ;  and  the 
noticeable  feature  throughout  is  that  of  elevation ,  — 
nothing  is  relaxed,  nothing  diminished,  the  whole 
scheme  of  training  is  raised  to  the  highest  level ;  not 
only  are  the  hands  to  be  clean,  but  the  heart  is  to  be 
without  a  stain  ;  not  only  must  outward  law  be  satis¬ 
fied,  but  spiritual  law  must  be  honored.  The  stream 
was  to  oe  cleansed  by  the  purification  of  the  fountain. 
The  fruit  was  to  be  made  good  by  first  making  the 
tree  good.  Can  the  non-Christian  moralists  excel  this 
idea  of  the  reformation  and  advancement  of  human 
society  and  human  interests?  If  men  please,  they  may 
attempt  to  make  a  watch  keep  time  by  altering  the 
hands,  but  the  only  wise  plan  is  to  correct  the  internal 
action.  Jesus  Christ  went  to  the  mainspring  of  human 
life  :  while  the  Pharisees  washed  their  hands,  he  sought 
to  cleanse  men’s  hearts ;  while  others  criticised  the 
action,  he  pronounced  upon  the  motive. 

The  results  of  this  spiritual  education  were  to  be 
seen  in  the  entire  course  of  life  ;  to  be  seen,  for  exam¬ 
ple,  in  the  common  use  of  language  ;  words  were  to 
be  the  truthful  expression  of  the  heart.  “  Let  your 
communication  be  Yea,  yea;  Nay,  nay:  for  whatso¬ 
ever  is  more  than  these  cometh  of  evil.”  Men  had  so 
distrusted  one  another  that  only  an  oath  could  be  ac<^ 
cepted  as  a  pledge  of  sincerity  — 

“  Kneel  with  me  —  swear  it  —  ’tis  not  in  words  I  trust, 

Save  when  they’re  fenced  with  an  appeal  to  heaven,” 

was  the  rough  creed  of  nearly  every  class  of  society. 
This  was  to  be  thrown  away,  and  men  were  to  hold 
frank,  unselfish,  and  reliable  intercourse  with  each 


292 


ECCE  DEUS. 


other.  No  mental  reservations,  or  Jesuitical  subtle¬ 
ties,  were  allowed  by  Christ ;  words  had  a  moral 
value  assigned  them,  so  that  by  his  speech  a  man  was 
to  be  justified  or  condemned.  In  perfect  accordance 
with  this  simplicity  of  fellowship  are  the  directions 
respecting  secret  almsgiving,  secret  fasting,  and  secret 
prayer.  The  processes  are  to  be  marked  by  the  most 
intense  sincerity,  so  much  so  that  even  God’s  eye  may 
not  see  wrinkle  or  flaw  upon  them.  Can  the  non- 
Christian  moralists  excel  this  idea  of  purity  of  social 
honor,  —  this  test  of  homage  and  service?  These  di¬ 
rections  upset  all  that  is  false  in  speech,  and  all  that 
is  insincere  in  action  ;  and  set  men  in  a  right  attitude 
towards  each  other  and  towards  God.  They  are 
fundamental  in  spirit,  and  consequently  universal  in 
application,  and  by  so  much  they  prove  themselves  to 
have  come  from  one  who  spake  with  44  authority,  and 
not  as  the  Scribes.” 

All  the  objections  which  have  been  urged  against 
Christian  morality  proceed,  apparently,  upon  a  very 
partial  collation  or  a  strange  misunderstanding  of 
scriptural  statements.  An  eminent  political  economist 
has  expressed  himself  in  terms  of  no  ordinary  strin¬ 
gency  ;  and,  if  his  indictment  be  valid,  an  instant  re¬ 
vision  of  Christian  ethics  would  take  place.  He  says, 
u  Christian  morality  (so  called)  has  all  the  characters  of 
a  reaction  ;  it  is,  in  great  part,  a  protest  against  pagan¬ 
ism.  Its  ideal  is  negative  rather  than  positive  ;  passive 
rather  than  active  ;  innocence  rather  than  nobleness ; 
abstinence  from  evil  rather  than  energetic  pursuit  of 
good.  In  its  precepts  (as  has  been  well  said),  4  Thou 
«halt  not  ’  predominates  unduly  over  4  Thou  shalt/ 


RELATION  OF  THE  CROSS  TO  PRACTICAL  MORALS.  293 

In  its  horror  of  sensuality  it  has  made  an  idol  of 
asceticism,  which  has  been  gradually  compromised 
away  into  one  of  legality.  It  holds  out  the  hope  of 
heaven,  and  the  threat  of  hell,  as  the  appointed  and 
appropriate  motives  to  a  virtuous  life  ;  in  this  falling 
far  beyond  the  best  of  the  ancients,  and  doing  what 
lies  in  it  to  give  to  human  morality  an  essentially 
selfish  character,  by  disconnecting  each  man’s  feelings 
of  duty  from  the  interests  of  his  fellow-creatures, 
except  so  far  as  a  self-interested  inducement  is  offered 
to  him  for  consulting  them.”  How  much  latitude 
may  be  claimed  for  the  parenthetic  u  so  called”  is  not 
stated,  but,  unless  it  saves  the  moral  reputation  of 
Jesus  Christ  and  all  the  Christian  writers,  who  alone 
could  teach  Christian  morality,  the  description  is  a 
caricature  and  a  lie.  If  men  persist  in  accepting  as 
Christian  morality  what  was  never  taught  by  Christ 
and  his  apostles,  they  simply  prove  themselves  im¬ 
moral.  We  submit,  too,  that  it  would  be  fair  in 
impeaching  Christian  morality  to  cite  the  particular 
passages  to  which  objection  is  taken.  A  general 
charge  cannot  be  grappled  with,  and  if  a  parenthesis 
be  skilfully  thrown  into  that  general  charge  the  dif¬ 
ficulty  is  increased  to  an  impossibility.  In  the  quota¬ 
tion  just  given  it  is  alleged  that  the  ideal  of  Christian 
morality  is  u  negative  rather  than  positive,  passive 
rather  than  active.”  Then  what  is  the  meaning  of 
such  words  as  “  Let  your  light  so  shine  before  men, 
that  they  may  sec  your  good  works;”  u  Wnosoever 
shall  do  and  teach  these  commandments,  the  same 
shall  be  called  great  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  ” 
4‘  But  be  ye  doers  of  the  word,  and  not  hearers  only, 


294 


ECCE  DEUS. 


deceiving  your  own  selves;”  “What  doth  it  profit, 
my  brethren,  though  a  man  say  he  hath  faith,  and 
have  not  works?  Can  faith  save  him?  If  a  brother 
or  sister  be  naked  and  destitute  of  daily  food,  and  one 
of  you  say  unto  them,  Depart  in  peace,  be  ye  warmed 
and  filled,  notwithstanding  ye  give  them  not  those 
things  that  are  needful  to  the  body ;  what  doth  it 
profit?  ”  Is  this  negative  rather  than  positive,  passive 
rather  than  active?  It  is  further  charged  that  u  its 
ideal  is  innocence  rather  than  nobleness.”  Is  this 
true  of  the  morality  taught  by  Christ  and  his  apostles? 
“  Love  your  enemies,  bless  them  that  curse  you,  do 
good  to  them  that  hate  you,  and  pray  for  them  which 
despitefully  use  you  and  persecute  you  ;  ”  “If  thine 
enemy  hunger,  feed  him  ;  if  he  thirst,  give  him  drink ; 
for  in  so  doing  thou  shalt  heap  coals  of  fire  on  his 
head.”  Is  this  innocence  rather  than  nobleness? 
Christian  morality  is  further  charged  with  inculcating 
“  abstinence  from  evil  rather  than  energetic  pursuit 
of  good.”  How  do  the  Christian  writings  testify  on 
this  point?  “Prove  all  things;  holdfast  that  which 
is  good  ;  ”  “  Believe  not  every  spirit,  but  try  the  spirits 
whether  they  are  of  God  ;  ”  “To  the  law  and  to  the 
testimony;  if  they  speak  not  according  to  this  law, 
it  is  because  there  is  no  light  in  them  ;  ”  “  Abhor  that 
which  is  evil ;  cleave  to  that  which  is  good  ;”  “  Hold 
that  fast  which  thou  hast,  that  no  man  take  thy 
crown.”  Is  this  a  “  mere  abstinence  from  ev  il”?  It 
is  further  charged  that  “  4  Thou  shalt  not ’  predom¬ 
inates  unduly  over  4  Thou  shalt.’  ”  This  complaint  is 
unjust.  Christian  morality  legislates  for  society  as  it 
is,  and  not  for  society  as  it  might  have  been,  —  for 


RELATION  OF  THE  CROSS  TO  PRACTICAL  MORALS.  295 

real,  not  ideal  man.  Christian  morality  had  not  only 
to  enlighten  ignorance,  but  to  restrain  evil.  We 
venture  to  say  that,  in  family  training,  “  Thou  shalt 
not  ”  occupies  a  larger  share  of  the  daily  instruc¬ 
tion  than  “  Thou  shalt,”  according  to  the  age  of 
the  children.  It  should  be  remembered,  too,  that 
Almighty  God  himself  pronounced  the  “shalt”  and 
“  shalt  not  ”  of  the  Decalogue  ;  and  if  he  gave  the 
one  “  undue  ”  prominence  over  the  other,  he  was  un¬ 
qualified  to  give  any  moral  commandments.  In  con¬ 
nection  with  the  moral  legislation  of  the  sacred  Scrip¬ 
tures,  it  cannot  be  too  clearly  remembered  that  it  was 
addressed  to  a  fallen  race,  consequently  there  was  a 
great  negative  work  to  be  done  ;  and  if  “  Thou  shalt 
not  ”  was  much  required,  the  objector  should  blame 
the  immorality  which  necessitated  it,  and  not  the 
moralit}  which  it  was  intended  to  recover.  This 
allegation  against  the  negative  aspect  of  Christian 
morality  can  be  accounted  for  only  on  two  grounds : 
first,  upon  an  ignorance  of  human  nature,  which 
reflects  not  that  legislation  should  be  adapted  to  the 
age  and  capacity  of  those  who  need  the  law ;  and 
secondly,  an  ignorance  of  the  fact  that,  though  the 
form  of  the  legislation  is  negative,  the  reasons  of  the 
legislation  are  positive.  The  objector  may  forbid  his 
child  to  enter  a  certain  house :  the  child  sees  only  the 
negative  aspect  of  the  command,  not  the  positive 
reason  of  the  commander;  nor  could  he  understand 
that  reason,  however  the  parent  might  attempt  to 
explain  it.  The  first  thing  to  do  is  not  to  quarrel  with 
the  legislation,  but  to  have  faith  in  the  Legislator  ;  and 
then  his  word,  how  difficult  soever  of  explanation, 


296 


ECCE  DEUS. 


will  be  received  with  confidence  and  honor,  and  the 
time  of  interpretation  be  waited  for  with  patience. 

An  objection  has  been  taken  to  Christian  morality 
from  the  purely  political  side.  It  has  been  said  by  the 
writer  already  quoted,  that  “while  in  the  morality  of 
the  best  Pagan  nations,  duty  to  the  State  holds  a  dis¬ 
proportionate  place,  infringing  on  the  just  liberty  of 
the  individual,  in  purely  Christian  ethics  that  grand 
department  of  duty  is  scarcely  noticed  or  acknowl¬ 
edged.”  If  we  mistake  not  —  and  we  have  read  the 
purely  Christian  ethics  with  some  care  —  this  is  a 
superficial  and  unjust  opinion.  It  should  be  borne  in 
mind  that  “  the  State  ”  is  an  expression  which  means 
different  things  in  different  countries  ;  or,  if  it  means 
the  same  thing  substantially,  there  are  endless  modifi¬ 
cations  in  the  practical  use  of  the  term.  Purely  Chris¬ 
tian  ethics  have  a  deeper  application  than  the  political 
codes  of  particular  countries ;  and  probably,  while 
saying  less  about  the  State  than  Plato  does,  they  are 
all  the  while  affecting  State  life  more  powerfully  than 
all  the  formal  political  treatises  that  could  be  written. 
The /‘purely  Christian  ethics ”  address. themselves  to 
man ,  and  not  to  particular  nationalities  ;  when  men 
reduce  the  purely  Christian  ethics  to  practice,  their 
political  relations  will  feel  the  advantage.  Purely 
Christian  ethics  say,  “  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor 
as  thyself:  ”  “  Honor  all  men  ;  love  the  brotherhood  ; 
fear  God;  honor  the  king:”  “Husbands,  love  your 
wives;  wives,  be  in  subjection  to  your  husbands:” 
“  Render  unto  all  their  dues,  tribute  to  whom  tribute 
is  due,  custom  to  whom  custom,  fear  to  whom  fear, 
honor  to  whom  honor :  ”  “  Render  unto  Cassar  the 


RELATION  OF  THE  CROSS  TO  PRACTICAL  MORALS.  297 

things  which  are  Cassar’s,  and  unto  God  the  things 
which  are  God’s.”  The  vital  operation  of  these  prin¬ 
ciples  in  the  intelligence  and  conduct  of  any  commu¬ 
nity,  would  inaugurate  a  healthier  political  era  than 
could  be  introduced  by  the  most  exact  statistical  tables, 
and  the  most  elaborately  detailed  political  creed.  They 
leave  all  variations  of  the  State  just  as  the  genius 
of  statesmen  may  determine ;  but  they  go  to*  the 
heart  of  the  people,  and  give  its  impulses  and  resolu¬ 
tions  the  highest  and  purest  tone.  What  if  purely 
Christian  ethics  had  been  occupied  in  advocating  one 
form  of  government  against  another,  in  putting  mon¬ 
archy  against  democracy,  or  despotism  against  consti¬ 
tutionalism?  The  influence  of  purely  Christian  ethics 
would  have  been  limited,  and  limitation  in  moral  ad¬ 
vantage  is  essentially  opposed  to  the  bounty  of  the 
grace  of  God.  We  take  this  political  objection  to  be 
rather  a  commendation  than  a  reproach.  Politics  may 
be  local,  but  ethics  must  be  universal :  a  man  may  be 
a  democrat  or  a  king,  a  Czar  or  a  serf ;  he  may  follow 
Cassar  or  Brutus,  without  endangering  his  destiny  by 
bad  character  ;  but  the  moment  a  man  attempts  to  ac¬ 
commodate  ethics  to  personal  prejudice  or  passion,  he 
is  dangerous  to  any  State.  Jesus  Christ  commanded 
his  disciples  to  preach  the  Gospel  in  u  all  nations,”  — 
a  thing  which  would  have  been  impossible  had  the  Gos¬ 
pel  embodied  a  special  political  creed  ;  but  wherever 
the  Gospel  is  received,  the  less  is  comprehended  in 
the  greater ;  better  men  become  better  politicians ; 
larger  hearts  conceive  larger  measures ;  holier  con¬ 
sciences  call  for  purer  statutes  ;  and  as  kings  and  citi¬ 
zens  are  drawn  toward  the  Great  Ruler,  a  new  vitality 

13* 


29S 


ECCE  DEUS. 


and  wider  freedom  characterize  statesmanship  and  all 
the  relations  of  public  life. 

The  same  writer  expresses  himself  in  language  more 
decisive  still,  if  possible  ;  he  says,  u  I  am  as  far  as  any 
one  from  pretending  that  these  defects  are  necessari¬ 
ly  inherent  in  the  Christian  ethics,  in  every  manner  in 
which  it  can  be  conceived,  or  that  the  many  requisites 
of  a  complete  moral  doctrine,  which  it  does  not  con¬ 
tain,  do  not  admit  of  being  reconciled  with  it.  Far 
less  would  I  insinuate  this  of  the  doctrines  and  pre¬ 
cepts  of  Christ  himself.  .  .  .  But  it  is  quite  consistent 
with  this  to  believe  that  they  contain,  and  were  meant 
to  contain,  only  a  part  of  the  truth  ;  that  many  es¬ 
sential  elements  of  the  highest  morality  [the  italics 
are  the  transcriber’s]  are  among  the  things  which  are 
not  provided  for  in  the  recorded  deliverances  of 
the  Founder  of  Christianity.  ...  I  believe  that  other 
ethics  than  any  which  can  be  evolved  from  exchi- 
sively  Christian  sources  must  exist  side  by  side  w  ith 
Christian  ethics,  to  produce  the  moral  regeneration 
of  mankind.  ...  It  can  do  no  service  to  blink  the 
fact,  known  to  all  who  have  the  most  ordinary  ac¬ 
quaintance  with  human  history,  that  a  large  portion 
of  the  noblest  and  most  valuable  moral  teaching  has 
been  the  work,  not  only  of  men  who  did  not  know,  but 
of  men  who  knewr  and  rejected,  the  Christian  faith.”  * 
A  little  more  precision  in  the  use  of  words  would 
have  been  useful  in  enabling  the  reader  to  understand 
this  doctrine.  If,  as  the  writer  distinctly  allows, 
“the  many  requisites  of  a  complete  moral  doctrine” 
“  admit  of  being  reconciled  with  ”  the  Christian  ethics. 


*  Mill,  On  Liberty. 


RELATION  OF  THE  CROSS  TO  PRACTICAL  MORALS.  299 

it  does  not  quite  appear  how  u  many  of  the  essential 
elements  of  the  highest  morality  ”  are  not  provided 
for  by  the  Founder  of  Christianity.  How  can  the 
u  complete”  be  “  reconciled  ”  with  the  u  not  provided 
for”?  When  u  many  essential  elements  of  the  highest 
moralit)  ”  are  wanting,  how  can  there  be  a  “  recon¬ 
ciliation  ”  between  such  a  deficiency  and  “  the  many 
requisites  of  a  complete  moral  doctrine”?  At  best, 
the  reconciliation  can  only  be  partial ;  partialness  is 
incompleteness  ;  and  incompleteness  in  moral  teaching 
is  a  grave  charge  to  bring  against  Jesus  Christ;  it  is 
not  incompleteness  in  merely  theoretical  or  doctrinal 
teaching,  but  incompleteness  in  moral  comprehension. 
Look  at  the  possible  consequences  of  such  incom¬ 
pleteness.  Those  who  listened  to  Jesus  Christ  receive/! 
from  him  an  incomplete  morality  ;  by  so  much  as  their 
morality  was  incomplete  their  lives  might  be  immoral ; 
by  so  much  as  their  lives  were  immoral  responsibility 
must  be  fastened  on  their  teacher.  If  they  had  known 
better,  they  might  have  done  better ;  Jesus  Christ  did 
not  teach  them  better,  and  upon  Jesus  Christ  the 
responsibility  must  rest.  If  it  be  contended  that  the 
incompleteness  was  merely  in  statement,  not  in  prin¬ 
ciple,  the  plea  cannot  be  accepted,  because  it  is  dis¬ 
tinctly  alleged  by  the  objector  that  u  many  essential 
elements  of  the  highest  morality  are  not  provided  for 
in  the  recorded  deliverances  of  the  Founder  of  Chris¬ 
tianity.”  Suppose,  then,  to  apply  the  case  to  the 
present  time,  that  any  man  should  accept  Jesus  Christ 
-as  his  only  moral  teacher;  that  his  whole  life  should 
be  built  upon  the  sayings  of  Jesus  Christ:  it  must 
follow,  since  he  has  nothing  but  “  the  recorded 


3°° 


ECCE  DEUS. 


deliverances  of  the  Founder  of  Christianity  ”  to  go  by, 
that  his  life  will  be  destitute  of  “  many  of  the  essen¬ 
tial  elements  of  the  highest  morality  ;  ”  yet  Jesus  Christ 
promises  that  those  who  “  do  ”  his  “  sayings  ”  shall  be 
saved,  and  declares  that  those  who  “do  them  not” 
shall  be  lost :  but  if  “  men  who  knew  and  rejected  the 
Christian  faith  ”  have  favored  the  world  with  “  a  large 
portion  of  the  noblest  and  most  valuable  moral  teach¬ 
ing,”  where  is  the  equity  of  saving  men  who  are  des¬ 
titute  of  “  many  essential  elements  of  the  highest 
morality,”  and  condemning  men  who  have  given 
society  “  the  noblest  and  most  valuable  moral  teach¬ 
ing”?  And  if  the  equity  be  challenged,  what  does 
there  remain  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  Christ?  The 
men  who  have  “rejected  the  Christian  faith”  must 

(1)  have  had  access  to  higher  moral  sources  than 
were  available  to  the  Founder  of  the  Christian  faith  ;  or 

(2)  have  had  finer  and  larger  moral  capacity  than  Jesus 
Christ ;  or  (3)  must  have  been  endowed  with  what  for 
want  of  a  better  term  may  be  called  a  more  powerful 
faculty  of  moral  statesmanship  so  as  to  enable  them  to 
legislate  more  comprehensively  than  the  Founder  of 
Christianity.  Under  any  of  these  assumptions  it  is 
clear,  from  the  objector’s  point  of  view,  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  superseded  by  a  higher  order  of  teachers, 
and  that  his  morality  must  go  down  with  other  narrow 
dogmas  which  were  adapted  to  semi-barbarous  ages. 

But  is  it  true  that  “  many  essential  elements  of  the 
highest  morality  are  among  the  things  which  are  not 
provided  for  in  the  recorded  deliverances  of  the  Found¬ 
er  of  Christianity”?  What  are  the  essential  elements 
of  the  highest  morality?  Would  intelligent  and  loving 


RELATION  OF  THE  CROSS  TO  PRACTICAL  MORALS  3OI 

reverence  for  God  be  admitted  to  be  one  of  them?  If 
so,  it  is  provided  for  in  the  recorded  deliverances,  of 
the  Founder  of  Christianity.  Is  the  highest  venera¬ 
tion  of  human  nature  worthy  to  be  ranked  as  one  of 
them?  If  so,  it  is  provided  for  in  the  recorded  deliv¬ 
erances  of  the  Founder  of  Christianity.  Is  the  loftiest 
disinterestedness,  or  the  most  generous  magnanimity, 
an  essential  element  of  the  highest  morality?  If  so, 
it  is  provided  for  in  the  recorded  deliverances  of  the 
Founder  of  Christianity.  Do  justice,  mercy,  forgive¬ 
ness,  and  peace,  find  any  place  among  the  essential 
elements  of  the  highest  morality?  If  so,  they  are  pro¬ 
vided  for  in  the  recorded  deliverances  of  the  Founder 
of  Christianity.  Is  philanthropy,  as  shown  in  loving 
care  for  all  men,  alike  as  regards  the  body  and  the 
soul,  in  any  way  related  to  the  highest  morality?  If  so, 
it  is  provided  for  in  the  recorded  deliverances  of  the 
Founder  of  Christianity.  We  have  not  been  able  to 
discover  one  essential  element  of  the  highest  morality 
which  is  not  provided  for  in  those  deliverances,  and 
we  have  waited  with  unrequited  patience  for  specific 
references  on  the  part  of  the  objector.  In  a  general 
way  the  author  says,  “  It  is  in  many  points  incomplete 
and  one-sided  ;  and  unless  ideas  and  feelings  not  sanc¬ 
tioned  by  it  had  contributed  to  the  formation  of  Euro¬ 
pean  life  and  character,  human  affairs  would  have  been 
in  a  worse  condition  than  they  now  are.”  As  not 
one  of  these  u  many  points  ”  is  given,  we  have  no  case 
before  us.  We  know  not  to  what  u  ideas  and  feelings  ” 
not  sanctioned  by  Christian  morality  European  ideas 
are  indebted  for  not  being  u  in  a  worse  condition  than 
they  now  are,”  but  our  conviction  is  strong  that  if 


3°3 


ECCE  DEUS. 


Europeans  had  done  unto  others  as  they  would  that 
others  should  do  unto  them  ;  if  they  had  fed  their  hun¬ 
gering  enemies,  and  overcome  evil  with  good  ;  if  they 
had  done  justly,  loved  mercy,  and  walked  humbly 
with  God;  if  they  had  abhorred' evil,  and  cleaved  to 
that  which  is  good  ;  if  they  had  not  believed  every 
spirit,  but  tried  the  spirits  whether  they  were  of  God, 
—  that  their  “affairs”  would  have  been  so  much  the 
less  voluminous  by  the  absence  of  every  knavish  in¬ 
trigue  and  every  unrighteous  war.  We  cannot  see 
what  is- meant  by  calling  upon  Christian  morality  to 
interfere  in  European  affairs  in  any  other  manner  than 
that  in  which  it  interferes  with  the  affairs  of  the  whole 
world.  On  this  point  we  have  already  expressed  an 
opinion.  Christian  morality  is  not  elaborated  like  a 
table  of  statistics  or  an  Act  of  Parliament ;  it  gives  the 
moral  spirit,  and  in  that  it  gives  ever)dhing  that  can  be 
required.  The  sun  will  not  do  any  gardening,  but 
without  it  no  gardening  could  be  done.  The  dew  will 
sow  no  seed,  but  without  it  seed  would  be  sown  in 
vain.  The  greater  the  agent,  the  less  of  detail  will  it 
attempt ;  the  greater  the  spirit,  the  less  of  literal  law 
will  it  dictate.  Si)  it  will  be  found,  that  where  the 
Spirit  of  Jesus  Christ  is,  the  morality  of  Jesus  Christ 
will  follow  :  that  Spirit  determines  the  whole  course 
of  life  ;  and  it  should  be  remembered  by  all  who  repre¬ 
sent  the  Christian  ethics,  that,  if  any  man  have  not 
the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  his.  It  is,  therefore, 
positively  immoral  on  the  part  of  objectors  to  drag  in 
Christ’s  name  as  responsible  for  all  moral  systems 
which  ignorant  men  may  set  up. 

The  author  now  under  consideration  can  hardly 


RELATION  OF  THE  CROSS  TO  PRACTICAL  MORALS.  303 

escape  this  charge.  He  occasionally  confounds  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  Christ  with  “  religious  education, ” 
and  the  “  Calvinistic  theory.”  For  example,  lie  affirms 
that  “  in  the  morality  of  private  life,  whatever  exists 
of  magnanimity,  high-mindedness,  personal  dignity, 
even  the  sense  of  honor,  is  derived  from  the  purely 
human,  not  from  the  religious,  part  of  an  education, 
and  never  could  have  grown  out  of  a  standard  of  ethics 
in  which  the  only  worth  professedly  recognized  is  that 
of  obedience.”  This  may  be  a  serious  charge  against 
the  “  religious  education  ”  that  was  inflicted  on  the 
objector;  but  it  is  not  therefore  a  true  charge  against 
Christian  morality.  VVe  have  no  intention  to  be  flip¬ 
pant  when  we  say  that  we  accept  the  objector’s  own 
account  of  the  “  religious  education  ”  which  he  re¬ 
ceived,  for  most  truly  he  has  done  his  utmost  to  bring 
dishonor  upon  the  morality  which  would  have  had  a 
happier  effect  upon  him  than  the  dogmas  which  he 
has  mistaken  for  Christian  ethics.  Does  the  objector 
know  where  “  the  purely  human  ”  part  of  education 
ends,  and  where  the  “religious”  part  begins?  Can 
he  inform  us  what  would  have  been  the  condition  of 
mankind,  not  to  speak  merely  of  European  affairs,  if 
Jesus  Christ  had  never  appeared  on  the  earth?  Does 
“  the  purely  human  part  of  our  education”  itself  owe 
nothing  to  the  inspiring  and  expansive  genius  of  Chris¬ 
tianity?  Has  Christianity  done  nothing  to  promote 
the  intellectual  culture  of  mankind?  Has  the  voice  of 
Christianity  never  been  heard  pleading  for  liberty,  de¬ 
fending  weakness,  and  assailing  despotism?  Is  Chris¬ 
tianity  altogether  a  dumb  morality?  Is  it  mere  decla¬ 
mation  that  has  represented  that  her  trumpet  rang  the 


3°4 


ECCE  DEUS. 


clearest  and  loudest  blast  in  every  call  to  war  for  truth 
and  virtue  ;  that  her  hand  was  the  strongest  and  stead¬ 
iest  in  all  conflicts  ;  and  that  her  white  banner  was 
never  borne  off  the  field  in  shame?  Is  there  any  truth 
in  all  this,  or  is  it  but  a  frenzied  imagining  on  the 
part  of  Christ’s  dupes?  No  wonder  that  the  objector 
should  have  come  to  some  such  conclusion  respecting 
Christian  morality  when  we  find  him  confounding  it 
with  44  the  Calvinistic  theory,”  which  he  thus  describes  : 
44  According  to  that  the  one  great  offence  of  man  is 
self-will.  All  the  good  of  which  humanity  is  capable 
is  comprised  in  obedience.  You  have  no  choice  ;  thus 
you  must  do,  and  no  otherwise  :  4  whatever  is  not  a 
duty  is  a  sin.’  Human  nature  being  radically  corrupt, 
there  is  no  redemption  for  any  one  until  human  nature 
is  killed  within  him.  To  one  holding  this  theory  of 
life,  crushing  out  any  of  the  human  faculties,  capaci¬ 
ties,  and  capabilities,  is  no  evil :  man  needs  no  capa¬ 
city  but  that  of  surrendering  himself  to  the  will  of 
God  ;  and  if  he  uses  any  of  his  faculties  for  any  other; 
purpose  but  to  do  that  supposed  will  more  effectually, 
he  is  better  without  them.”  We  may  leave  Calvinists 
to  deal  with  this  passage,  as  we  cannot  profess  to  know 
their  case  so  well  as  they  may  know  it  themselves. 
We  venture,  however,  to  suggest  that  the  term  u  hu¬ 
man  nature,”  as  employed  in  this  quotation,  is  proba¬ 
bly  used  in  a  different  sense  from  that  in  which  Calvin 
employed  it,  and  therefore  the  sanguinary  representa¬ 
tion  of  44  killing  human  nature  ”  is  by  no  means  the 
murderous  deed  which  the  objector  would  have  his 
readers  suppose.  We  know  not  how  weak  may  have 
been  the  Calvinists  with  whom  the  objector  may  have 


\ 


RE.LA1  ION  OF  THE  CROSS  TO  PRACTICAL  MORALS.  305 

come  in  contact,  but  we  own  to  certain  recollections, 
not  quite  so  distinct  indeed  as  we  could  wish  them  to 
be,  of  periods  in  European  history  in  which  Calvinists 
have  not  shrunk  from  battle,  or  prison,  or  hunger,  or 
death,  that  they  might  break  the  sway  of  oppressors 
and  enthrone  Liberty  in  her  rightful  elevation.  All 
this,  however,  is  of  comparatively  small  concern  to  ns. 
We  are  more  careful  to  point  out  the  slanderous  re¬ 
marks  which  the  author  has  inferentially,  we  hope  not 
intentionally,  made  respecting  the  character  of  God. 
Even  allowing  the  u  Calvinistic  theory”  to  be  exactly 
as  he  puts  it,  his  view  of  God  is  most  degrading,  not 
to  say  blasphemous.  The  author  speaks  of  u  the  will 
of  God  ”  in  a  manner  which  shows  that  he  entertains 
a  doubtful  opinion  of  that  will.  Practically  he  con¬ 
temns  the  idea  of  that  will  being  the  rule  of  human 
life.  We  can  conceive  of  one  ground  only  upon  which 
such  contempt  can  be  sustained,  and  that  is,  the  ground 
of  hnperfection  on  the  part  of  God.  The  writing  of 
these  words  costs  us  no  little  feeling,  yet  they  are  not 
too  strong  to  express  the  simple  fact  of  the  case.  If 
God  is  an  imperfect  Being,  submission  to  his  will  may 
be  a  profound  mistake  ;  but  if  he  is  infinite  in  wisdom, 
infinite  in  holiness,  infinite  in  love,  then  submission  to 
his  will  must  be  the  brightest  and  noblest  end  of  life. 
The  decision  turns  wholly  on  the  character  of  Grd  ; 
and  that  being  determined,  we  shall  have  a  correct 
interpretation  of  u  obedience,”  a  term  which  is  appar¬ 
ently  an  insuperable  stumbling-block  in  the  author's 
way.  What  is  obedience  as  viewed  in  the  light  of  the 
true  character  of  God?  The  objector  clearly  regards 
it  as  implying  an  affront  to  human  reason,  and  indeed 


.5°  6 


ECCE  DEUS. 


to  all  the  attributes  which  are  characteristic  of  man¬ 
hood.  He  imagines  obedience  to  be  equivalent  to  a 
renunciation  of  personal  thought  and  a  surrendering 
of  personal  liberty.  lie  would  be  right  if  the  obe¬ 
dience  were  demanded  of  any  being  in  the  universe 
but  God.  The  finite  can  never  be  humbled  in  accept¬ 
ing  the  will  of  the  Infinite  ;  indeed,  all  human  life, 
if  properly  directed,  is  spent  in  one  continuous  effort 
to  reach  a  higher  standard  than  it  has  yet  attained ; 
what  if  that  effort  be  called  obedience ,  and  that 
standard  be  called  God?  It  sounds  very  arbitrary  to 
say,  u  You  have  no  choice;  thus  you  must  do,  and 
no  otherwise :  ”  but  the  fact  is  that  every  man  has 
a  choice  ;  every  man  may  walk  in  the  light  of  his 
own  wisdom  ;  every  man  may  shut  out  the  sun  and 
light  his  own  torch ;  or,  any  man  recognizing  the 
uncertain,  the  ever-changing  conditions  of  human  life, 
may  seek  the  wisdom  which  is  divine,  a  wisdom 
which  rouses  the  intellect  into  fuller  vitality,  and 
leaves  unimpaired  every  faculty  of  manhood. 

Let  us,  however,  suppose  a  state  from  which  u  the 
religious  part  of  our  education  ”  is  totally  excluded. 
Great  care  must  be  taken  in  this  supposition,  for,  to 
make  the  case  effective,  every  trace  of  God  and  Jesus 
Christ  must  be  entirely  avoided.  We  cannot  allow 
the  objector  to  avail  himself  even  of  incidental  obli¬ 
gations  to  the  Divine  or  Christian  element,  because 
his  declarations  upon  the  general  question  necessitate 
a  choice  between  positive  Divine  government-  and 
practical  atheism.  He  has  said  that  u  many  essential 
elements  of  the  highest  morality  ”  are  wanting  in 
Christianity  ;  that  u  a  large  portion  of  the  noblest  and 


RELATION  OF  TIIE  CROSS  TO  PRACTICAL  MORALS.  307 

most  valuable  moral  teaching  has  been  the  work  not 
only  of  men  who  did  not  know,  but  of  men  who 
knew  and  rejected,  the  Christian  faith  ;  ”  that  u  in  the 
morality  of  private  life,  whatever  exists  of  magna¬ 
nimity,  high-mindedness,  personal  dignity,  even  the 
sense  of  honor,  is  derived  from  the  purely  human, 
not  from  the  religious,  part  of  our  education  ;  ”  that 
“  while  in  the  morality  of  the  best  Pagan  nations, 
duty  to  the  State  holds  a  disproportionate  place  .  .  . 
in  purely  Christian  ethics  that  grand  department  of 
duty  is  scarcely  noticed  or  acknowledged  ;  ”  that  “  it 
is  in  the  Koran,  not  in  the  New  Testament,  that  wre 
read  the  maxim,  ‘  A  ruler  who  appoints  any  man  to 
an  office,  when  there  is  in  his  dominions  another 
man  better  qualified  for  it,  sins  against  God  and 
against  the  State ;  ’  ”  and,  above  all,  he  deprecates 
the  idea  of  man  surrendering  himself  entirely  to  the 
will  of  God.*  Let  us,  then,  accepting  these  state¬ 
ments  for  the  sake  of  argument,  exclude  the  religious 
element  entirely  from  the  State.  No  God  of  any  kind 
can  be  allowed  ;  no  authoritative  standard  of  morals 
can  be  acknowledged  ;  every  man  must  be  his  own 
god  and  his  own  lawgiver ;  the  sanctions  of  the  future 
life  must  be  ignored  as  fictions ;  the  idea  of  a  final 
and  public  judgment  must  be  treated  as  a  delusion  ; 
veneration,  which  we  have  been  accustomed  to  recog¬ 
nize  as  lying  at  the  base  of  all  great  character,  must  be 
annihilated  ;  every  instinct  or  recollection  that  relates 
to  divine  things  must  be  destroyed  or  forgotten.  All 
this  being  done,  we  have  to  fabricate  a  theory  of 
statesmanship,  and  to  supply  bonds  of  nationality; 


*  Mill,  On  Liberty. 


ECCE  DEUS. 


3°S 

we  have  to  establish  bases  of  domestic  and  commer¬ 
cial  relationship,  and  to  start  the  whole  machinery  of 
confederated  life  and  activity.  We  have  no  sugges¬ 
tion  to  offer  as  to  how  all  this  could  be  done  in  the 
proposed  atheistic  state  ;  but  we  fear  that,  having  got 
rid  of  “the  religious  part  of  his  education,”  the  diffi¬ 
culties  of  the  atheistic  politician  w’ould  be  greater  than 
he  had  anticipated.  From  one  or  two  hints  which  wre 
find  in  the  work  On  Liberty  we  infer  that  even  athe¬ 
ism  itself  could  not  quite  escape  some  of  the  perils 
which  attend  society  as  it  is  now  constituted,  —  even 
utilitarianism  would  occasionally  get  entangled  in  the 
meshes  of  speculation.  For  example,  Mr.  Mill  says, 
“  I  regard  utility  as  the  ultimate  appeal  on  all  ethical 
questions,”  and  yet  a  few  pages  afterwards  he  says, 
“  The  usefulness  of  an  opinion  is  itself  matter  of 
opinion ;  as  disputable,  as  open  to  discussion,  and 
requiring  discussion  as  much,  as  the  opinion  itself.” 
What,  then,  becomes  of  Mr.  Mill’s  “  ultimate  appeal  ”  ? 
Utility  is  the  ultimate  appeal,  but  utility  itself  is  dis¬ 
putable  ;  what,  then,  is  the  value  of  a  disputable  ulti¬ 
mate  appeal?  Two  combatants  agree  to  remit  the 
question  in  debate  to  the  ultimate  appeal  of  utility  ; 
but,  on  approaching  the  tribunal,  they  are  informed 
that  the  controversy  may  be  continued,  because  “  the 
usefulness  of  an  opinion  is  itself  matter  of  opinion.” 
The  difficulty  is  not  much  relieved  by  another  dictum 
of  the  utilitarian  author ;  he  says,  “  We  can  never  be 
sure  that  the  opinion  we  are  endeavoring  to  stifle  is 
a  false  opinion  ;  and  if  we  were  sure,  stifling  it  would 
be  an  evil  still.”  It  would  follow,  then,  that  if  we 
can  never  be  sure  that  an  opinion  is  false,  we  can 


RELATION  OF  THE  CROSS  TO  PRACTICAL  MORALS.  309 

never  be  sure  that  an  opinion  is  right ;  and  if  we  can 
never  be  sure  that  an  opinion  is  right,  we  can  never 
be  sure  that  an  action  is  right  (for  all  intelligent  action 
must  be  founded  on  opinion)  ;  and  if  we  can  never  be 
sure  that  an  action  is  either  right  or  wrong,  then  law 
is  a  conjecture  and  justice  is  an  impossibility.  We 
are  forcibly  reminded  of  the  difficulties  which  Soc¬ 
rates  felt  in  discussing  with  the  Sophists.  Infer¬ 
ring  from  their  arguments  that  “it  is  neither  possi¬ 
ble  to  speak  falsely,  nor  to  entertain  a  false  opinion, 
nor  to  be  ignorant,”  he  half  apologizes  to  Euthyde- 
mus  for  putting  an  “  unpleasant  question,”  which  is 
this:  “For  if  we  do  not  err,  either  acting,  or  speak¬ 
ing,  or  thinking,  —  if  this  be  the  case,  of  what, 
by  Jupiter,  are  ye  come  as  the  teachers?  ”  Will 
it  be  answered  that  there  are  certain  opinions  and 
courses  of  action  settled  as  good  and  useful,  or  useful 
and  therefore  good?  We  may  ask,  Who  settled  them? 
Who  had  any  right  to  settle  them?  It  must  be  borne 
in  mind  that  we  are  conducting  the  inquiry  on  the 
understanding  that  “  the  religious  part  of  our  educa¬ 
tion  ”  has  been  strictly  excluded  from  society  ;  hence 
the  appositeness,  and  hence  the  necessity,  of  asking, 
Who  settled  that  any  opinion  or  any  course  of  life  is 
useful  and  good?  Mr.  Mill  gives  what  is  apparently 
intended  as  a  solution  of  this  difficulty ;  he  says, 
“  Complete  liberty  of  contradicting  and  disapproving 
our  opinion  is  the  very  condition  which  justifies  us  in 
assuming  its  truth  for  purposes  of  action  ;  and  on  no 
other  terms  can  a  being  with  human  faculties  have 
any  rational  assurance  of  being  right.”  This  is  some¬ 
what  firm  for  a  man  who  has  just  laid  down  the  doc- 


3IQ 


ECCE  DEUS. 


trine  that  we  u  can  never  be  sure  that  the  opinion  we 
are  endeavoring  to  stifle  is  a  false  opinion.”  Even 
after  it  is  “completely  contradicted,”  what  then? 
Contradiction  simply  amounts  to  setting  one  opinion 
against  another  ;  and,  if  the  appeal  be  made  to 
“  utility,”  we  are  told  by  the  author  that  “  the  use¬ 
fulness  of  an  opinion  is  itself  matter  of  opinion.” 
The  subject  is  not  much  illuminated  by  another  de¬ 
liverance  :  “  The  cessation,  on  one  question  after 
another,  of  serious  controversy  is  one  of  the  necessary 
incidents  of  the  consolidation  of  opinion  ;  a  consolida¬ 
tion  as  sahttary  in  the  case  of  true  opinions,  as  it  is 
dangerous  and  noxious  when  the  opinions  are  erro¬ 
neous .”  We  use  italics,  because  we  are  somewhat 
startled  to  find  so  broad  a  distinction  drawn  between 
opinions  that  are  true  and  opinions  that  are  erroneous, 
when  we  have  just  been  told  that  “  we  can  never  be 
sure”  that  any  opinion  is  false  ! 

The  practical  difficulties  in  carrying  out  Mr.  Mill’s 
ideas  are  hardly  less  than  those  of  accepting  his  the¬ 
ories.  When  opinion  ,is  formed,  it  may,  of  course, 
become  an  active  agent;  Mr.  Mill  anticipates  this, 
and  lays  down  the  following  illustrated  doctrine:  “An 
opinion  that  corndealers  are  starvers  of  the  poor,  or 
that  private  property  is  robbery,  ought  to  be  unmo¬ 
lested  when  simply  circulated  through  the  press,  but 
may  justly  incur  punishment  when  delivered  orally  to 
an  excited  mob  assembled  before  the  house  of  a  corn- 
dealer,  or  when  handed  about  among  the  same  mob 
in  the  form  of  a  placard.”  What  is  the  object  of  an 
opinion  being  “  simply  circulated  through  the  press  ”? 
Is  it  not  to  create  public  opinion?  Who  is  responsi- 


RELATION  OF  THE  CROSS  TO  PRACTICAL  MORALS.  3II 

ble  for  the  excitement  of  a  mob?  Can  those  persons 
be  held  guiltless  of  the  excitement  (supposing  it  to 
take  an  insurrectionary  turn)  who  have  simply  circu¬ 
lated  through  the  press  the  doctrine  that  private  prop¬ 
erty  is  robbery?  Which  are  the  more  guilty,  the  men 
who  taught  the  lesson  or  the  men  who  carried  the 
lesson  into  effect?  If  the  opinion  did  not  lead  to 
action,  the  doctrine  would  be  harmless  ;  but  opinions 
do  lead  to  action,  and  the  serious  question  is,  Who 
are  responsible  in  cases  of  insurrection,  the  teachers 
or  the  taught?  The  teacher  may  be  less  inflammable 
than  the  man  who  receives  his  instructions ;  but  it 
seems,  from  our  point  of  view,  just  as  dangerous  to 
teach  the  doctrine  that  private  property  is  robbery 
as  to  throw  a  spark  upon  a  powder  magazine.  Mr. 
Mill,  as  it  appears  to  us,  in  constructing  his  atheistic 
or,  if  he  so  please,  utilitarian  scheme  of  society,  has 
overlooked  the  practical  aspect  of  opinion.  He  ap¬ 
parently  forgets  that  opinions  express  themselves  in 
action,  and  that  the  mental  life  (except  in  cases  of 
the  grossest  hypocrisy)  determines  social  action  and 
influence.  Mr.  Mill  apprehends  no  more  evil  from 
the  advocacy  of  any  opinion  than  from  the  recitation 
of  the  letters  of  the  alphabet  or  the  enumeration  of 
a  list  of  adverbs,  provided  that  advocacy  be  not  asso¬ 
ciated  with  such  a  powerful  temptation  as  that  of 
speaking  against  corndealers  before  the  house  of  a 
corndealer.*  If  a  “  placard  ”  against  corndealers  be 
given  away  at  the  door  of  a  blacksmith  the  circum¬ 
stance  may  not  be  criminal,  but  if  at  the  door  of  a 
corn-merchant  it  becomes  an  indictable  offence,  though 
the  blacksmith  may  live  immediately  opposite  the  corn- 

*  On  Liberty ,  p.  22. 


312 


ECCE  DEUS. 


merchant ;  so  great  a  difference  may  ten  yards  of 
pavement  make  !  Yet  Mr.  Mill  does  now  and  again 
turn  to  practical  matters ;  he  says  that  “  the  liberty 
of  the  individual  must  be  thus  far  limited  :  he  musl 
not  make  himself  a  nuisance  to  other  peopled’  What 
is  a  nuisance?  The  man  who  “circulates  through 
the  press  the  doctrine  that  private  property  is  rob¬ 
bery  ”  may  be  making  himself  a  nuisance  to  his 
honest  neighbors;  the  man  who  sets  up  utility  as  the 
ultimate  appeal  on  all  ethical  questions  may  be  making 
himself  a  nuisance  to  other  people ;  the  man  who 
“simply  circulates  through  the  press”  the  statement 
that  Calvinism  “kills  human  nature”  may  be  making 
himself  a  nuisance  to  other  people  :  it  is  necessary, 
consequently,  to  have  a  definition  of  a  nuisance  before 
we  can  limit  the  liberty  of  the  individual  who  make* 
himself  a  nuisance  to  other  people.  The  ‘utilitarian 
must  give  his  opinion  of  a  nuisance,  and  when  he  ha» 
done  so  we  may  remind  him  that  we  “  can  never  lx 
sure”  whether  an  opinion  is  either  true  or  false. 

These  are  some  of  the  difficulties  that  we  have  found 
in  the  working  of  the  Atheistic  Constitution.  In  the 
absence  of  an  absolute  standard  of  morals,  we  have 
felt  it  impossible  to  decide  anything.  What  one  of 
the  utilitarians  said  yesterday  is  contradicted  by  anoth¬ 
er  to-day.  That  which  was  harmless  on  a  placard  has 
become  treasonable  in  a  speech.  Utility  itself  has 
been  pronounced  useless,  and  every  opinion  has  been 
charged  with  uncertainty.  It  may  be  an  excellent 
constitution  for  atheists ;  it  may  be  very  satisfactory  to 
men  who  wish  to  disclaim  personal  responsibility  ;  but 
we  confess  to  a  consciousness  of  deep  want  which  can- 


RELATION  OF  THE  CROSS  TO  PRACTICAL  MORALS.  313 

not  be  satisfied  with  the  sophisms  of  utilitarianism. 
The  quotations  which  we  have  made  from  one  utilita¬ 
rian  would  seem  to  justify  the  opinions  which  Lord 
Macaulay  pronounced  on  utilitarians  as  a  body  :  “  We 
cannot  say  that  we  think  the  logic  on  which  they  pride 
themselves  likely  to  improve  their  heads,  or  the  scheme 
of  morality  which  they  have  adopted  likely  to  improve 
their  hearts  ;  ”  and  again,  u  The  utilitarians  have  some¬ 
times  been  abused  as  intolerant,  arrogant,  irreligious; 
as  enemies  of  literature,  of  the  fine  arts,  and  of  the 
domestic  charities.  .  .  .  But  scarcely  anybody  seems 
to  have  perceived  that  almost  all  their  peculiar  faults 
arise  from  the  utter  want  both  of  comprehensiveness 
and  precision  in  their  mode  of  reasoning.” 

From  utilitarianism  we  turn  to  Christianity  with  a 
most  grateful  sense  of  relief.  Whatever  mysteries  be¬ 
cloud  some  sides  of  it,  we  can  at  least  comprehend  its 
sublime  morality  founded  upon  a  right  idea  of  God. 
It  descends  into  no  such  details  as  have  just  been  dis¬ 
cussed  ;  it  simply  raises  the  whole  nature  of  man  to 
its  proper  elevation,  and  gives  human  reason  the  ad¬ 
vantage  of  Divine  guidance.  Its  teachings  are  enforced 
by  the  highest  sanctions  ;  the  dignity  of  manhood  is 
constantly  recognized  ;  and  the  doctrine  of  responsi¬ 
bility  constantly  enforced.  The  greatest  mind  may 
reflect  with  satisfaction  and  delight  on  its  great  prin¬ 
ciples,  while  the  simplest  mind  may  comprehend  its 
practical  directions.  Every  heart  knows  the  meaning 
of  love,  and  Jesus  Christ  makes  his  appeal  to  love 
alike  in  the  name  of  God  and  of  man.  Christianity 
is  addressed  to  all  that  is  fundamental  in  human  na¬ 
ture  ;  it  needs  no  accommodations  to  accidental  circum- 

H 


ECCE  DEUS. 


3T4 

stances,  any  more  than  the  sun  needs  to  adapt  himself 
to  the  various  features  of  the  landscape,  or  the  atmos¬ 
phere  to  the  changing  dialects  of  the  nations. 

The  Ptolemaic  theory  of  morals  is  superseded  by 
the  morality  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  earth  is  not  the 
centre  of  the  universe  ;  self  is  not  the  centre  of  life. 
u  It  may  be  truly  affirmed  that  there  never  was 
any  philosophy,  religion,  or  other  discipline,  which 
did  so  plainly  and  highly  exalt  the  good  which 
is  communicative,  and  depress  the  good  which 
is  private  and  particular,  as  the  holy  faith.,,  * 
God  is  the  sun:  around  him  life  should  constantly 
revolve,  drawing  from  him  light,  warmth,  beauty, 
and  fruitfulness.  A  motion  round  its  own  axis  alone, 
would  mean  night,  winter,  death  ;  but  the  revolution 
round  the  sun  means  day,  summer,  immortality.  The 
utilitarian  morality  is  to  be  classified  with  the  Ptole¬ 
maic  astronomy.  Both  have  a  wrong  centre  ;  a  centre 
which  necessitates  a  delusive  survey  and  an  incorrect 
calculation.  It  may  seem  a  small  thing  to  the  hardy 
utilitarians  that  Christians  should  be  passive,  innocent, 
and  negative  ;  but  perhaps  the  utilitarians  consider  too 
little  the  severity  of  the  process  through  which  Chris¬ 
tians  have  come  into  the  character  which  is  held  in 
such  philosophical  contempt,  and  forget  that  what  is 
now  negative  may  be  preparatory  to  what  is  affirma¬ 
tive.  Jesus  Christ  himself,  looked  at  on  the  cross, 
presents  a  spectacle  of  extreme  weakness  and  humilia¬ 
tion  ;  nothing  could  more  effectually  excite  the  scorn 
of  strong-minded  utilitarians  ;  yet  his  weakness  may 
be  succeeded  by  strength  ;  the  ear  of  corn  may  be 


*  Bacon. 


RELATION  OF  THE  CROSS  TO  PRACTICAL  MORALS.  315 

dying  that  it  may  bring  forth  a  fuller  life ;  so  that 
judgment  upon  the  case  may  be  premature.  Does  it 
ever  occur  to  the  robust  mind  of  the  utilitarian  that  he 
may  be  reasoning  upon  an  incomplete  induction?  We 
venture  to  think  that  he  is  never  troubled  with  self- 
convictions  upon  this  point.  But  is  he  not  aware 
that  self-restraint  is  a  clearer  proof  of  strength  than 
self-gratification?  Who  is  the  strong  man:  he  who 
seeing  luxuries  must  sate  his  appetite,  or  he  who  can 
look  at  them  and  hold  his  desires  in  moderation,  — 
nay,  further,  who  can  deny  himself  of  every  one  that 
he  may  dispose  of  them  for  the  benefit  of  others? 
Who  is  the  strong  man  :  he  who  instantly  repays  the 
slights  and  hurts  which  have  been  inflicted  upon  him, 
or  he  who  is  willing  to  forgive  even  where  he  is  able 
to  destroy?  Who  is  the  strong  man:  he  who  will 
live  so  as  to  gratify  every  lust,  or  he  wrho  says  that,  if 
eating  flesh  cause  his  brother  to  offend,  he  will  eat  no 
more  while  the  world  stands?  At  this  point  we  see 
what  the  utilitarians  may  regard  as  the  weakness  of 
the  cross ;  so  far  they  are  partially  right ;  it  now 
remains  to  show  them  that  crucifixion  is  to  be  suc¬ 
ceeded  by  resurrection ;  that  the  man  who  has  cruci¬ 
fied  himself  may  come  to  have  a  wide  and  lasting 
rulership. 


3l6 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

THE  POSTHUMOUS  MINISTRY  OF  JESUS  CHRIST. 

THE  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  will  not  be  called 
in  question  by  any  who  pay  the  slightest  regard 
to  the  authority  of  the  Christian  writings.  On  this 
point  there  is  entire  consistency  and  unanimity  on  the 
part  of  the  witnesses  ;  and  so  important  is  the  fact  of 
the  resurrection  that  the  stupendous  fabric  of  the 
Church  has  been  built  upon  it :  “  for  if  Christ  be  not 
risen  from  the  dead,  then  is  our  preaching  vain,  and 
your  faith  is  also  vain.”  It  is  not  proposed,  then,  to 
go  into  the  evidence  respecting  the  resurrection,  but 
to  inquire,  What  effect,  if  any,  did  the  resurrection 
produce  on  the  spirit  and  ministry  of  Jesus  Christ? 
Moments  of  triumph  put  a  man’s  spirit  to  the  test. 
Many  men  appear  to  be  humble  so  long  as  all  weap¬ 
ons  of  war  or  resources  of  defence  are  beyond  their 
reach,  who  become  inspired  with  desire  for  revenge 
when  circumstances  combine  in  their  favor.  How 
was  it  with  Jesus  Christ?  Did  the  voice  which 
sounded  over  the  open  grave  correspond  with  the 
music  which  announced  the  lowly  birth  in  Bethlehem? 
The  angels  sang  of  “  good  will  towards  men :  ”  did 
Jesus  Christ, 'after  the  resurrection,  contradict  or  fulfil 
their  song? 

The  writei  of  the  first  Gospel  enables  us  to  answei 


THE  POSTHUMOUS  MINISTRY  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.  3 1 7 

these  inquiries.  The  eleven  disciples  met  their  Master 
by  appointment  upon  a  mountain  in  Galilee ;  their 
emotions  were  not  unnaturally  conflicting,  —  u  they 
worshipped  him,  but  some  doubted.”  Jesus  Christ’s 
first  word  to  them,  as  recorded  by  Matthew,  reveals 
the  spirit  of  the  Gospel  in  a  most  graphic  and  impres¬ 
sive  manner:  “All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven 
and  in  earth”  —  what  then?  We  thought  he  had  “all 
power  ”  before,  when  he  wrought  his  mighty  works, 
—  to  what  use,  however,  did  he  put  his  power? 
When  “all  power”  is  given  into  the  hands  of  a  man 
who  has  been  exposed  to  the  highest  indignities  which 
society  can  inflict  upon  him,  it  may  be  expected  that 
his  enemies  will  not  escape  judgment.  It  is  not  only 
interesting,  but  most  exciting,  to  pause  at  the  expres¬ 
sion  “  all  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in 
earth,”  and  to  conjecture  how  the  sentence  will  be 
finished.  We  know  how  it  is  finished,  yet  so  far  as 
it  is  possible  to  move  the  mind  back  to  the  critical 
point  the  excitement  is  most  intense.  The  language 
of  doom  might  come  after  such  an  announcement ;  the 
“power”  might  express  itself  in  forms  of  vengeance, 
in  the  overturning  of  the  Roman  rule,  in  the  expul¬ 
sion  of  every  priest  who  had  given  his  voice  for  the 
cross,  or  in  the  calling  down  of  fire  upon  all  his  ene¬ 
mies.  Such  are  some  of  the  possible  uses  of  power  ; 
what  is  the  use  which  Jesus  Christ  makes  of  his 
omnipotence?  Having  asserted  his  possession  of  all 
power,  he  adds,  “  Go  ye  therefore,  and  teach  all  na¬ 
tions,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.”  Jesus  Christ 
thus  taught  the  true  use  of  all  power.  Power  is  only 


318 


ECCE  DEUS. 


used  truly  as  it  is  used  educationally , — Go  ye  there¬ 
fore  and  teach”  They  who  have  must  give.  No  man 
is  at  liberty,  according  to  the  laws  of  the  kingdom  of 
Jesus  Christ,  to  turn  his  power  to  merely  personal 
or  selfish  uses.  His  power  must  be  expended  for  the 
world’s  advantage,  otherwise  Jesus  Christ  will  dis¬ 
claim  his  professions  of  discipleship.  The  measure 
of  any  man’s  power  is  the  measure  of  his  obligation 
to  educate  society,  —  the  power  may  be  intellectual, 
commercial,  social ;  that  is  to  say,  the  man  may  have 
great  thinking  powers  of  his  own,  or  great  pecuniary 
resources,  or  great  influence  arising  from  a  lofty  repu¬ 
tation  ;  and  Jesus  Christ  claims  that  “all  nations” 
shall  have  the  advantage  of  his  ability.  As  he  was, 
so  his  disciples  are  to  be  in  t  e  world  according  to 
their  measure,  for  it  is  plainly  declared  that  u  if  any 
man  have  not  the  spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  his.” 
The  spirit  of  Christ  is  educational,  and  therefore  will¬ 
ingness  to  educate  is  the  test  of  life  in  Christ.  When 
Paul  addressed  the  elders  of  the  Church  of  Ephesus, 
he  said,  “  I  kept  back  nothing  that  was  profitable 
unto  you,”  plainly  showing  that  he  had  deeply  entered 
into  the  spirit  of  Jesus  Christ.  This  idea  of  “  keeping 
back  ”  is  most  expressive.  Ananias  and  Sapphira 
“  kept  back  part  of  the  price,”  and  we  know  their 
fate  ;  Paul  “  kept  back  nothing,”  and  we  know  with 
what  exultancy  he  looked  forward  to  his  u  crown  ;  ” 
the  goats  kept  back  the  bread  and  water,  and  they 
went  away  into  everlasting  punishment;  the  sheep 
kept  nothing  back,  and  they  entered  into  life  eternal. 

The  comprehensiveness  of  this  educational  charter 
is  most  suggestive.  There  is  the  grandeur  of  the 


THE  POSTHUMOUS  MINISTRY  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.  319 

conception  ;  standing  with  eleven  men,  poor  and  unlet¬ 
tered  men,  upon  a  mountain  in  Galilee,  Jesus  Christ 
turns  the  world  into  a  great  school,  and  elects  teachers 
who  may  constantly  draw  upon  himself  for  instruction 
and  inspiration.  He  refers  to  no  difficulties,  never 
provides  for  surrender  or  withdrawment,  describes  no 
boundaries ;  but  speaks  of  the  world  as  a  unit,  of  all 
nations  as  scholars,  and  of  his  Gospel  as  the  theme  of 
every  teacher.  Before  the  magnificence  of  this  con¬ 
ception  even  the  miracles  dwindle  into  insignificance. 
Then  there  is  the  implied  adaptation  of  the  Gosjrel  to 
human  nature  universally.  There  are  no  modifica¬ 
tions  of  the  subject ;  the  Gospel  is  one  just  as  the  sun 
is  one  ;  and  human  nature  is  as  essentially  one  as  is 
the  Divine  nature.  Then  there  is  the  determination 
of  destiny,  —  he  that  believeth  shall  be  saved,  he  that 
believeth  not  shall  be  damned.  No  statesman  ever 
spoke  of  the  affairs  of  state  with  so  much  ease,  confi¬ 
dence,  and  comprehensiveness  as  Jesus  Christ  spoke 
of  the  world.  He  looked  with  the  eye  and  spoke  with 
the  voice  of  the  Universal  Prince,  yet  the  marks  of 
recent  wounds  were  on  his  hands  and  his  feet,  and  no 
man  was  ever  more  unprincely  in  his  visible  resources. 
This  must  be  accounted  for  by  those  who  deny  his 
Godhead ;  to  those  who  believe  in  his  Godhead  the 
case  presents  no  difficulty.  They  would  rather  ac¬ 
cept  the  mystery  of  God  becoming  man  than  the 
impossibility  of  man  becoming  God. 

So  far  the  spirit  of  Jesus  Christ  after  the  resurrection 
is  entirely  accordant  with  all  that  we  have  seen  in 
him  up  to  the  time  of  the  crucifixion  ;  what  difference 
there  may  be  is  not  one  of  nature,  but  of  application  ; 


32° 


ECCE  DEUS. 


the  benevolence  is  the  same,  though  the  commission 
now  includes  the  whole  world,  as  well  as  the  lost 
sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel.  There  remain  two 
instances  of  Christ’s  posthumous  spirit  yet  to  be 
looked  at,  in  which  the  world  can  never  cease  to  be 
interested.  They  relate  to  individuals,  it  is  true,  yet 
those  individuals  may  be  regarded  as  representative  so 
long  as  doubters  and  backsliders  are  to  be  found  in 
society.  Happily,  the  disciples  represented  various 
temperaments,  and  various  intellectual  capacities. 
Had  they  been  elected  upon  some  special  principle 
of  inclusion,  that  circumstance  would  have  excited 
suspicion ;  as  it  was,  however,  the  most  opposite 
characteristics  were  represented  by  the  eleven  dis¬ 
ciples,  so  that  the  teaching  of  Jesus  Christ  had  to 
commend  itself  to  what  was  essential,  and  not  to  what 
was  accidental,  in  human  nature,  and  this  is  the  more 
remarkable  when  it  is  considered  that  nearly  every¬ 
thing  he  said  seemed  to  be  entirely  opposed  to  the 
main  conditions  of  human  nature  generally,  and  of 
Jewish  society  particularly.  The  two  instances  re¬ 
ferred  to  are  singularly  pathetic.  The  first  is  that  of 
Didymus.  He  was  absent  when  Jesus  Christ  appeared 
to  the  disciples  on  the  evening  after  the  resurrec¬ 
tion,  and  when  the  appearance  was  reported  to  him 
he  met  the  statement  with  the  most  resolute  scepti¬ 
cism  :  “  Except,”  said  he,  “  I  shall  see  in  his  hands 
the  print  of  the  nails,  and  put  my  finger  into  the  print 
of  the  nails,  and  thrust  my  hand  into  his  side,  I  will 
not  believe.”  To  see  his  general  appearance  would 
not  be  enough  ;  to  hear  his  voice  (which  sufficed  for 
Mary  Magdalene)  would  not  be  enough ;  he  must 


THE  POSTHUMOUS  MINISTRY  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.  3  21 

descend  into  particulars,  and  elect  his  own  standards 
of  judgment.  How  will  Jesus  Christ  treat  the  doubt¬ 
er?  A  question  of  transcendent  import !  The  doubter 
will  come  upon  every  age  :  on  what  principle  shall  he 
be  encountered?  After  eight  days  Jesus  Christ  made 
a  second  appearance  to  his  disciples,  and  the  doubter 
was  present;  as  soon  as  he  repeated  EIq^vjj  Jesus 
passed  at  once  to  the  sceptical  Didymus,  and  said, 
u  Reach  hither  thy  finger,  and  behold  my  hands  ;  and 
reach  hither  thy  hand,  and  thrust  it  into  my  side  ;  and 
be  not  faithless,  but  believing.”  Instead  of  resenting 
the  slight  which  had  been  cast  upon  the  veracity 
of  his  disciples,  instead  of  rebuking  an  occasional 
absence  from  the  Christian  fellowship,  Jesus  Christ 
actually  submitted  to  the  very  tests  which  the  doubter 
Jiimself  had  elected  !  He  was  greater  in  that  houi 
than  when  he  wrought  the  chief  of  his  miracles.  He 
gave,  however,  a  gentle  hint  that  the  time  of  personal, 
sensuous  revelation  was  just  closing,  and  that  the 
spiritual  era  was  about  to  open.  He  said,  “  Thomas, 
because  thou  hast  seen  me,  thou  hast  believed  ;  blessed 
are  they  that  have  not  seen,  and  yet  have  believed.” 
It  was  an  appropriate  close  of  the  physical  dispensa¬ 
tion,  a  powerful  and  convincing  climax!  Any  other 
climax  would  have  been  a  failure.  A  hand  thrust 
into  the  wound  finishes  with  most  tragic  effect  w  hat 
Simeon  so  well  began  when  he  took  the  child  in  his 
arms  and  sighed  for  rest.  Thomas  Didymus  was  the 
first  doubter  that  entered  into  peace  through  the 
wounded  Christ,  and  to-day  there  is  no  other  plan  by 
which  the  soul  can  steady  itself  but  by  resting  on  the 
same  wounds,  though  in  a  higher  and  nobler  sense. 

14  * 


322 


ECCE  DEUS. 


Not  only  was  this  an  appropriate  conclusion  of  the 
Ph  ysical  testimony,  but  a  most  gracious  introduction 
to  the  spiritual  age  :  u  Blessed  are  they  that  have  not 
seen,  and  yet  have  believed.”  It  was  the  old  word. 
We  heard  it  first  on  the  Mount  of  Beatitudes,  we  hear 
it  last  on  the  way  to  Olivet,  the  Mount  of  Ascension  ; 
it  was  “  blessed  ”  at  the  beginning,  it  was  “  blessed  ” 
at  the  close ;  the  changeful  anthem,  varying  from  the 
whisper  of  a  breeze  to  the  noise  of  a  storm,  began  and 
ended  on  the  same  note.  The  last  man  who  believed 
by  sight,  was  not  so  blessed  as  the  first  man  who 
believed  on  testimony.  Each  age  has  been  offered 
a  larger  blessing  than  that  which  was  offered  to  its 
predecessor. 

The  second  instance  is  still  more  deeply  interesting 
than  the  first.  All  the  disciples  forsook  Jesus  Christ 
and  fled  about  the  time  of  the  crucifixion.  The  case' 
of  Peter  was  one  of  special  aggravation.  He  denied 
his  discipleship  with  an  oath.  The  first  to  accept 
Christ’s  call,  he  was  the  most  resolute  in  disclaiming 
his  Master.  Can  a  crime  like  this  be  forgiven?  Is 
there  compass  enough  in  Christ’s  love  to  get  round  a 
treason  so  black,  an  apostasy  so  complete?  When 
the  sovereign  and  the  traitor  meet,  what  will  happen  ? 
They  did  meet.  Early  in  the  morning  Jesus  Christ 
appeared  on  the  shore  of  Tiberias,  and  accosted  seven 
or  eight  of  his  disciples,  who  had  been  fishing  all 
night  without  success.  With  the  keen  instinct  of  love, 
John  was  the  first  to  identify  the  Master.  Turning  to 
Peter,  he  said,  “It  is  the  Lord.”  That  was  enough 
for  the  man  who  carried  an  intolerable  burden  on  his 
heart ;  when  he  heard  it  was  the  Lord,  u  he  gil  t  his 


THE  POSTHUMOUS  MINISTRY  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.  3 23 

fisher’s  coat  unto  him  (for  he  was  naked),  and  did  cast 
himself  into  the  sea.”  We  know  not  what  happened 
in  the  private  interview  which  succeeded,  the  inter 
view  between  the  great  sinner  and  the  greater  Saviour. 
It  is  better  that  we  do  not  know  ;  better  that  the  heart 
should  have  its  own  sweet  and  secret  memories  of 
intercourse  with  Jesus  Christ,  —  something  that  should 
be  quite  the  heart’s  own  treasure.  Perhaps  no  words 
passed ;  perhaps  only  a  look ;  perhaps  only  a  grasp 
of  the  wounded  Hand  !  We  know  the  effect  of  one 
look  ;  it  broke  Simon  Peter’s  heart :  perhaps  the  look 
of  the  eyes  which  had  slept  in  death,  healed  it  again. 
We  cannot  tell ;  we  wish  to  know,  yet  we  would  not 
inquire,  lest  we  profane  the  sanctuary  of  the  soul. 
Part  of  the  story  is  told.  The  risen  Saviour  dined 
with  the  disciples.  After  dinner  Jesus  saith  to  Simon 
Peter,  “  Simon,  son  of  Jonas,  lovest  thou  me  more 
than  these?”  He  was  once  boisterous  in  his  demon¬ 
strativeness, —  ready  for  prison,  prepared  for  death, — 
yet  he  was  convicted  of  falsehood  and  profanity ! 
How  would  he  answer  now?  “  He  saith  unto  him, 
Yea,  Lord ;  thou  knowest  that  I  love  thee.”  Again 
the  question,  and  again  the  answer ;  and  yet  once 
more ;  the  three  denials  were  lost  in  the  three  con¬ 
fessions  ;  and  the  thrice  plighted  backslider  was  thrice 
charged  to  feed  the  flock,  —  to  feed  the  lambs,  and  to 
feed  the  sheep  ;  no  partial  ministry ;  no  sign  of  hu¬ 
miliation  attached  to  the  service  ;  the  forgiveness  was 
complete,  the  restoration  was  vital.  In  the  beginning 
of  his  ministry  Jesus  Christ  had  said  to  Simon  Peter, 
“Follow  me ;  ”  the  old  words  precisely  were  repeated 
on  this  occasion.  Jesus  foretold  the  circumstances  of 


3H 


ECCE  DEUS. 


Petei’s  death,  and  then  said,  “Follow  me.”  The 
broken  link  was  taken  out,  and  this  new  one  put  in 
its  place.  We  know  what  a  strong  man  Peter  be¬ 
came  aftei  his  restoration,  —  how  he  excelled  all  the 
New  Testament  writers  in  richness  of  pathos,  and 
how  he  rivalled  even  Paul  in  catholicity  and  labor. 
The  heart  is  enriched  by  its  sorrows.  Restored  men, 
so  often  looked  upon  with  suspicion,  ought  to  be  the 
wisest  of  Christian  teachers:  wise  to  guide  the  sheep, 
and  strong  to  carry  the  lambs. 

In  this  charge  to  Simon  Peter,  Jesus  Christ  gives 
no  instruction  as  to  theology  or  morals.  Nothing  ap¬ 
proaching  the  nature  of  a  formal  creed  is  hinted  at. 
Yet  this  would  have  been  the  time  above  all  other 
times,  had  such  a  creed  been  necessary,  to  enter  into 
details ;  specially  so  with  Simon  Peter,  who  had  fallen 
into  shame.  On  what,  then,  was  the  great  mission 
founded?  Simply  on  love .  Where  there  is  intense 
love  of  Jesus  Christ,  there  is  capacity  to  feed  the  flock  ; 
where  this  love  is  wanting,  all  other  capacity  is  use¬ 
less.  Love  is  the  security  of  the  Christian  life,  and 
of  the  Christian  apostleship.  Love  is  the  guarantee 
of  morality,  for  love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law.  God 
so  loved  that  he  gave;  man,  too,  must  so  love  as  to 
give.  lie  is  not  to  be  drawn  with  chains  of  iron  ;  he 
is  to  be  impelled  by  love.  Consider  what  love  is,  and 
see  its  sufficiency  and  power.  Love  is  the  term  which 
expresses  the  purest  and  intensest  enthusiasm  of  the 
soul.  When  that  purest  and  intensest  enthusiasm  is 
directed  towards  Jesus  Christ,  love  attains  its  noblest 
development.  The  whole  man  is  aglow  with  an  ardor 
which  nothing  that  is  unholy  can  touch  and  live  !  The 


/BIE  POSTHUMOUS  MINISTRY  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.  32 j 

man’s  vitality  is  at  its  highest  point ;  every  sensibility 
is  as  keen  as  it  can  be  ;  every  faculty  is  under  pledge 
to  suffering  or  service.  This  was  all  that  Jesus  Christ 
required  even  of  the  man  who  had  fallen  so  foully,  and 
shown  himself  so  helpless  under  pressure.  Before  the 
crucifixion  he  had  trusted  in  himself :  the  very  last  ele¬ 
ment  of  self-conceit  was  to  be  destroyed  in  him,  and 
henceforth,  he  was  to  live  under  the  inspiration  and 
guardianship  of  perfect  love.  There  is  no  faculty  of 
interpretation  equal  to  love  ;  it  has  access,  so  to  speak, 
to  every  chamber  of  God’s  heart,  and  can  speak  all 
languages  :  nor  is  there  any  capacity  of  suffering  equal 
to  it ;  it  accepts  suffering  as  a  trial  of  reality  and 
strength,  and  wrings  great  spoil  from  its  unwilling 
grasp.  This  we  had  known  before;  but  Jesus  Christ 
employs  a  word  which  calls  us  to  consideration  ;  on 
being  assured  of  Simon  Peter’s  love,  he  tells  him  to 
feed  the  flock.  How  can  love  feed?  We  know  how 
love  can  stimulate,  defend,  or  soothe  ;  but  this  new 
word  startles  us  somewhat.  Yet  it  need  not.  Love 
delights  in  the  satisfaction  of  others.  It  does  not  care 
in  any  low  sense  to  feed  itself ;  it  thrives  best  when  it 
gives  most,  and  does  most  for  the  lambs  and  the  sheep. 
But  which  lambs  and  sheep?  Is  the  fold  defined? 
Yes:  Feed  my  lambs  —  feed  my  sheep — was  the 
command  of  Jesus  Christ :  the  love  was  Christ’s,  the 
service  was  Christ’s;  nor  does  Simon  Peter  appear  to 
have  forgotten  the  charge,  or  the  metaphor  by  which 
it  was  expressed,  for  long  after  he  wrote,  — u  Feed  the 
flock  of  God  which  is  among  you,  taking  the  over¬ 
sight  thereof,  not  by  constraint,  but  willingly  ;  not  for 
filthy  lucre,  but  of  a  ready  mind ;  .  .  .  and  when  the 


326 


ECCE  DEUS. 


chief  Shepherd  shall  appear,  ye  shall  receive  a  crown 
of  glory  that  fadeth  not  away.”  Love  must,  by  the 
force  of  its  own  nature,  feed  others,  —  study  them, 
comprehend  their  capacity ;  and  satisfy  them  when 
they  feel 

“The  curse  of  a  high  spirit  famishing 
Because  all  earth  but  sickens  it.” 

Jesus  Christ  dealt  thus  with  the  doubter  and  the  apos¬ 
tate, —  gently,  instructively,  and  forgivingly.  Not  a 
harsh  word  was  said  to  either  of  them :  let  the  church 
recollect  this,  and  consider  how  far  the  servant  has 
followed  the  Master’s  example.  There  may  be  some 
standing  without  who  should  be  called  within. 

Jesus  Christ  made  a  remarkable  posthumous  appear¬ 
ance  to  two  of  his  disciples,  as  they  walked  to  Em- 
maus.  They  may  be  regarded  as  representing  men 
who  have  taken  an  incomplete  view  of  the  facts  which 
relate  to  Christ.  If  their  collation  of  evidence  had 
been  fuller,  they  would  have  had  less  trouble.  They 
saw  but  a  “fragment”  of  the  case;  “and  as  they 
communed  one  with  another,  they  were  sad.”  (Luke 
xxiv.  17.)  The  interview  between  Jesus  Christ  and 
them  was  remarkable  chiefly  for  the  full  exposition  of 
the  case  which  Christ  gave  from  what  may  be  termed 
the  documentary  side :  “  Beginning  at  Moses  and  all 
the  prophets,  he  expounded  unto  them  in  all  the 
Scriptures  the  things  concerning  himself.”  This  puts 
the  Old  Testament  in  its  right  position.  It  is  a  Chris 
tian  document.  From  the  beginning  of  revelation  to 
its  close,  Christ  is  the  main  subject:  without  him  there 
was  nothing  to  be  revealed. 

At  the  close  of  all,  he  breathed  upon  his  disciples 


THE  POSTHUMOUS  MINISTRY  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.  337 

the  Holy  Ghost.  This,  however,  was  but  preparatory 
to  the  full  gift  which  was  shortly  afterwards  received. 
The}  were  to  tarry  in  the  city  of  Jerusalem  until  they 
were  endued  with  power  from  on  high.  Thus  the 
epochs  merged  into  one  another.  John  pointed  to 
Jesus,  Jesus  promised  to  send  the  Comforter,  and  so, 
after  long  ages,  we  have  come  to  the  rule  of  the  Spirit. 
He  works  deeply  though  silently.  His  “going”  is 
not  heard  in  the  thunder,  or  earthquake,  or  whirlwind. 
He  comes  as  quietly  as  the  morning,  and  while  un¬ 
observing  men  are  exclaiming,  “  Where  is  the  promise 
of  his  coming?  ”  he  is  actually  filling  the  heavens  with 
light  and  renewing  the  face  of  the  earth.  Of  him  it 
may  be  said,  as  was  said  of  Jesus  Christ,  “  There 
standeth  one  among  you,  whom  ye  know  not ;  he 
it  is  ”  ! 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


CONTROVERSIAL  NOTES  ON  “ECCE  HOMO.” 

r  I  ''HE  most  cursory  observation  cannot  fail  to  no* 
tice  the  innumerable  beauties  of  this  publication. 
The  writer  has  rendered  inexpressible  service  to  the 
cause  of  free  religious  inquiry  by  his  discussions  of 
ethical  truth,  and  given  views  of  Jesus  Christ’s  Life 
and  Work  which  must  be  most  useful  in  many  ways. 
The  present  writer  cannot  but  thank  the  author  of 
JEZcce  Homo  for  the  intellectual  stimulus  and  moral 
inspiration  which  he  has  derived  from  a  repeated  pe¬ 
rusal  of  its  instructive  and  stimulating  pages.  It  is  in 
no  captious  spirit,  therefore,  that  the  following  Notes 
are  submitted  to  the  respectful  consideration  of  the 
author  and  readers  of  Ecce  Homo .  The  writer  is 
most  anxious  that  the  truth  should  be  vindicated,  at 
what  risk  soever  to  all  minor  considerations.  The 
term  “  Notes  ”  is  employed  because  what  follows  is 
little  more  than  an  arrangement  of  mere  marginalia  ; 
the  subjects  themselves  have  been  discussed,  more  or 
less,  in  preceding  chapters  ;  what  remains  is  a  series 
of  running  criticisms  or  suggestive  inquiries. 


CONTROVERSIAL  NOTES  ON  “  ECCE  HOMO.”  329 


I.  Page  25. 

The  conception  of  a  kingdom  of  God  was  no 
new  one,  but  was  familiar  to  every  Jew.” 

True;  but  Christ  came  to  give  that  conception  a 
profounder  interpretation,  and  a  more  intensely  spirit¬ 
ual  bearing.  The  Jew  had  a  carnal  idea  of  a  spiritual 
fact. 

II.  Page  26. 

John  and  Christ  “  revived  the  obsolete  function 
of  the  prophet,  and  did  for  their  generation  what  a 
Samuel  and  an  Elijah  had  done  for  theirs.” 

This  is  too  narrow  an  interpretation  of  the  term 
“  prophet,”  and  too  limited  as  applied  to  Christ.  A 
prophet  may  teach  as  well  as  merely  predict.  — 
Samuel  and  Elijah  spoke  of  another,  Christ  spoke 
of  himself.  —  Christ  did  not  work  for  a  “generation,” 
but  for  all  men  through  all  time.  Christ  did  not  u  re- 
vive  an  obsolete  function,”  he  consummated  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  a  prefigurative  office. 


III.  Page  31. 

44  Now  under  which  form  did  Christ  propose  to 
revive  it  (the  ancient  theocracy)  ?  The  vision  of 
universal  monarchy  which  he  saw  in  the  desert 
suggests  the  answer.  He  conceived  the  theocracy 
restored  as  it  had  been  in  the  time  of  David,  with 
a  visible  monarch  at  its  head,  and  that  monarch 
himself.” 


33° 


ECCE  DEUS. 


Was  it  merely  a  conception  (“he  conceived ”),  or 
was  it  the  carrying  out  of  an  eternal  purpose?  Did 
Christ  come  with  a  plan  or  without  a  plan?  If  with 
a  plan,  when  was  that  plan  formed?  This  brings  up 
the  mystery  of  the  incarnation,  the  non-recognition  of 
which  is  the  cardinal  error  of  the  book.  Is  there  not 
some  confusion  of  terms  in  the  latter  part  of  the  sen¬ 
tence  just  cited?  How  can  a  man  be  at  the  head  of 
a  GW-cracy?  The  word  “representatively”  may  1  e 
suggested  ;  but  in  so  far  as  there  is  any  distinctive 
value  in  a  theocracy,  that  value  is  diminished  by  any 
qualifying  term  whatsoever.  The  Jewish  world  had 
already  passed  through  what  may  be  designated  a 
representative  theocracy  ;  and  if  Christ  came  merely 
to  reproduce  this  idea  (wrhich  the  perversity  of  the 
Jews  caused  to  be  a  failure),  replacing  David’s  name 
with  his  own,  wherein  was  the  value  of  his  service? 
When  the  author  of  Ecce  Homo  speaks  of  Christ’s 
being  the  visible  head  of  the  theocracy,  has  he  suf¬ 
ficiently  considered  the  meaning  of  Jesus  Christ’s 
declaration  to  Philip,  “  He  that  hath  seen  me  hath 
seen  the  Father”? 


IV.  Page  33. 

* '  He  saw  that  he  must  lead  a  life  altogether  dif¬ 
ferent  from  that  of  David  ;  that  the  pictures  drawn 
by  the  prophets  of  an  ideal  Jewish  king  were  col¬ 
ored  by  the  manners  of  the  times  in  which  they  had 


CONTROVERSIAL  NOTES  ON  u  ECCE  HOMO.”  33 1 

lived ;  that  those  pictures  bore  indeed  a  certain 
resemblance  to  the  truth,  but  that  the  work  before 
him  was  far  more  complicated  and  more  delicate 
than  the  wisest  prophet  had  suspected.” 

From  this  representation  it  might  be  inferred  that 
Christ  began  his  work  in  a  kind  of  mental  vacancy, 
and  waited  to  observe  the  current  of  thoughts  and 
events  around  him  before  committing  himself  to  any 
publicly  avowed  policy.  Fie  came,  it  would  appear, 
to  this  conclusion  while  “  meditating  upon  his  mission 
in  the  desert.”  This  view  of  the  case  is  irreconcila¬ 
bly  inconsistent  with  the  mystery  of  the  incarnation. 
It  would  suit  very  well  the  case  of  a  fanatic  who  had 
suddenly  conceived  the  insane  idea  of  embodying  the 
features  of  the  predicted  u  ideal  Jewish  king,”  and 
who  was  watching  an  opportunity  for  self-disclosure 
in  this  novel  'and  critical  character ;  but  it  signally 
fails  to  meet  the  necessary  idea  of  the  incarnation, — 
namely,  the  idea  of  anterior  purpose  and  arrangement. 
Could  a  man  begotten  of  the  Floly  Ghost  find  himself 
in  the  dubiety  necessitated  by  the  above  suggestion  ? 
Again  it  may  be  asked,  Did  Jesus  Christ  come  with  a 
plan  or  without  a  plan? 

V.  Page  34. 

“It  is  said  that  when  Jesus  Christ  called  himself 
a  King,  he  was  speaking  figuratively,  and  that  by 
‘King’  he  meant,  as  some  say,  God,  as  others,  a 


$32  -  ECCE  DEUS. 

wise  man  and  teacher  of  morality,  but  that  the 
Jews  persisted  in  understanding  the  expression 
literally.” 

Christ  employed  the  term  “King”  in  its  right 
sense.  If  the  Jews  by  virtually  deposing  God  had 
come  to  have  low  and  vicious,  or  carnal  and  grovel¬ 
ling  notions  of  royalty,  that  was  no  reason  why  Christ 
should  not  restore  an  abused  term  to  its  right  appli¬ 
cation  ;  on  the  other  hand,  it  was  in  perfect  harmony 
with  the  genius  of  his  mission  that  he  should  recover 
perverted  terms  to  right  uses  as  well  as  restore  fallen 
men.  He  came  to  seek  and  to  save  all  that  was  lost . 
—  King  is  a  divine  designation,  and  can  be  employed 
among  men  only  as  a  convenient  accommodation  of 
what  does  not  belong  to  them. 

VI.  Pages  38,  39. 

“  Christ  announced  the  restoration  of  the  Davidic 
monarchy,  and  presented  himself  to  the  nation  as 
their  King,  yet,  when  we  compare  the  position  he 
assumed  with  that  of  an  ancient  Jewish  king,  we 
fail  to  find  any  point  of  resemblance.” 

Did  Jesus  Christ  announce  the  restoration  of  the 
Davidic  monarchy?  Was  not  the  Davidic  monarchy, 
so  far  as  it  was  untainted  by  human  guilt,  or  unen- 
feebled  by  human  infirmity,  the  prefiguration  —  very 
shadowy  and  incomplete,  indeed  —  of  one  aspect  of 


CONTROVERSIAL  NOTES  ON  “  ECCE  HOMO.”  333 

his  own?  The  author  seems  to  have  inverted  the 
relation  between  David  and  Christ,  and  to  have  over¬ 
looked  the  typical  aspect  of  pre-Christian  history. 
The  very  fact  that  “  we  fail  to  find  any  point  of 
resemblance  ”  between  Christ  and  an  ancient  Tewish 
king,  throws  us  back  for  our  analogies  beyond  the 
older  royalty,  and  compels  us  to  find  them  in  traits 
of  government  and  purpose  which  lie  beyond  the 
merely  political  horizon.  Christ  took  the  appellation 
*k  King,”  not  from  the  man,  but  from  the  function. 
When  did  Christ  announce  the  restoration  of  the 
Davidic  monarchy?  If  the  facts  contradict  the  theo¬ 
ry,  what  confidence  can  be  placed  in  the  theorist? 

VII.  Page  50. 

Christ  “  did  not  work  his  way  to  royalty,  but 
simply  said  to  all  men,  4  I  am  your  King/  Pie  did 
not  struggle  forward  to  a  position  in  which  he 
could  found  a  new  state,  but  simply  founded  it.” 

This  ignores  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  Christ’s  pre¬ 
existence.  He  had  been  working  his  way  by  all 
preliminary  dispensations.  Aught  of  suddenness  or 
unpreparedness  which  appears  in  the  life  of  Christ 
must  be  accounted  for  on  the  people’s  side,  and  not 
by  immaturity  of  plan  or  vacillation  of  purpose  on 
the  part  of  Christ.  —  “  Simply  founded  it ;  ”  —  quite 
so  ;  but  why  do  not  other  men  u  simply  found  ”  a 


334 


ECCE  DEUS. 


monarchy  with  the  same  ease?  God  “simply”  made 
the  heavens  and  the  earth;  “simply”  said,  “Let 
there  be  light ;  ”  in  the  same  way,  did  not  Jesus 
Christ  “  simply  found”  his  monarchy? 

VIII.  Page  55. 

“  Men  could  approach  near  to  him,  could  eat 
and  drink  with  him,  could  listen  to  his  talk,  and 
ask  him  questions ;  and  they  found  him  not  acces¬ 
sible  only,  but  warm-hearted,  and  not  occupied  so 
much  with  his  own  plans  that  he  could  not  attend 
to  a  case  of  distress  or  mental  perplexity.” 

To  “  attend  to  a  case  of  distress  or  mental  per¬ 
plexity  ”  was  an  essential  part  of  “  his  own  plans.” 
He  came  for  the  very  purpose.  He  had  no  “  plans” 
inconsistent  with  such  attention.  Attending  to  a  case 
of  distress  or  mental  perplexity  is  not  a  circumstance 
to  be  separated  from  his  plans,  or  to  be  regarded  as 
merely  collateral,  but  as  being  the  great  object  of  his 
incarnation.  It  is  to  be  particularly  noted  that  while 
every  man’s  “distress  or  mental  perplexity”  came 
within  the  range  of  his  power,  his  own  “  distress  and 
perplexity”  were  beyond  the  reach  of  all  human  sym¬ 
pathy  and  aid.  He  suffered  alone,  trod  the  wine¬ 
press  alone. 

IX.  Page  55. 

“  This  temperance  in  the  use  of  supernatural 
power  is  the  masterpiece  of  Christ.” 


CONTROVERSIAL  NOTES  ON  “  ECCE  HOMO.”  335 

The  Jews  had  long  and  justly  suffered  from  super¬ 
natural  power.  Not  to  speak  of  anything  further, 
their  political  position  in  the  days  of  Jesus  Christ 
was  one  of  deep  dishonor  and  shame.  They  required, 
had  they  but  known  the  day  of  their  visitation,  the 
very  aspect  of  divine  power  which  Christ  distinc¬ 
tively  revealed,  as  has  been  shown  in  the  preceding 
pages,  power  not  destructive,  but  constructive.  “  To 
6ave,”  was  Christ’s  object. 

X.  Page  61. 

“  As  the  new  theocracy  was  to  be  the  countei- 
part  of  the  old,”  &c. 

Another  inversion  of  relations.  The  old  theocratic 
form  was  a  prefiguration  of  the  new,  not  the  new  a 
mere  counterpart  of  the  old.  There  had  been  a 
prophetic  element  in  all  history,  a  typical  element  in 
all  teaching,  and  an  acknowledged  incompleteness  in 
all  legislation :  what  was  the  meaning  of  symbol  and 
fragment?  The  law  came  by  the  servant,  grace  and 
truth  could  come  only  by  the  Son. 

XI.  Page  64. 

“We  arrive,  therefore,  at  the  first  distinguishing 
characteristic  of  the  society  into  which  Christ  called 
men.  It  was  a  society  whose  rules  were  enforced 
by  no  punishments.  The  ancient  Israelite  who 
practised  idolatry  was  stoned  to  death,  but  the 


ECCE  DEUS. 


336 

Christian  who  sacrificed  to  the  genius  of  Cassar 
could  suffer  nothing  but  exclusion  from  the  society, 
and  this  in  times  of  persecution  was  in  its  im¬ 
mediate  effects  of  the  nature  rather  of  a  reward 
than  of  a  punishment.” 

Punishment  is  to  be  estimated  by  the  nature  of 
the  society  from  which  the  offender  has  been  ex¬ 
cluded.  Exclusion  from  a  mere  political  union  may 
be  a  very  trivial  affair.  But  as,  according  to  the 
author’s  own  showing,  Christ’s  society  was  a  the¬ 
ocracy ',  how  could  any  punishment  be  greater  than 
the  very  punishment  which  he  describes  as  being, 
under  certain  circumstances,  somewhat  of  the  nature 
of  a  reward?  To  be  excluded  from  the  GW-cracy, 
how  tremendous  a  punishment !  A  punishment,  too, 
singularly  in  harmony  with  the  spiritual  character 
of  the  society.  What  is  a  storm  of  mere  thunder 
and  lightning,  compared  with  the  faintest  frown 
that  darkens  the  brow  of  troubled  love?  We  find 
precisely  the  same  principle  in  the  Judgment.  There 
are  no  such  external  forms  of  punishment  as  we  as¬ 
sociate  with  the  infliction  of  penalty,  —  simply  a 
“  going  away,”  a  turning  of  the  back  on  the  light, 
an  exclusion  from  the  theocracy !  The  author’s 
argument,  moreover,  is  limited  to  “  the  immediate 
effects”  of  this  exclusion,  a  most  unsatisfactory 
method  of  stating  the  case ;  for  in  all  ?noral  transac- 


CONTROVERSIAL  NOTES  ON  u  ECCE  HOMO.”  33 7 

tions  the  consequences  are  co-ordinate  with  the  dura¬ 
tion  of  the  actor.  We  are  not  sure  either,  that  the 
word  “  immediate  ”  is  well  chosen  ;  if  it  is  intended 
to  mean  external,  it  may  be  appropriate,  but  surely 
the  heart  of  the  excluded  man  would  feel  an  “  im¬ 
mediate  ”  vacancy,  an  indescribable  poverty,  and  a 
terrible  sense  of  loneliness. 

XII.  Page  65. 

“  Christ  himself  never  ceased  to  feel  keenly  as  a 
patriot.” 

Where  is  the  proof  that  he  ever  felt  “keenly  as  a 
patriot”?  Whatever  may  have  been  his  personal 
patriotism,  he  obliterated,  in  view  of  the  highest 
purposes,  all  ethnic  distinctions.  Without  destroying 
the  special  characteristics  of  patriotism,  he  caiT'ied 
patriotic  heroism  up  to  philanthropy.  Jesus  Christ 
aimed  at  the  enlargement,  as  well  as  the  purification, 
of  human  ideas,  so  that  the  man  who  began  with  a 
city  ended  with  the  world.  Apart  from  the  Cross, 
old  nationalities  remain ;  but  when  men  are  crucified 
with  Christ,  they  are  denizens  of  all  nations.  When 
they  are  “  lifted  up  ”  with  him,  “  all  men  come  ”  unto 
them.  “  Strangers  and  foreigners  ”  are  absorbed  in 
“  the  whole  family  ”  named  in  and  centralized  by 
“  the  Son  in  the  Father’s  house.” 


338 


ECCE  DEUS. 


XIII.  Page  69. 

“  To  obey  John’s  call  was  easy ;  it  involved  noth¬ 
ing  beyond  submission  to  a  ceremony ;  and  when 
the  prophet  had  acquired  a  certain  amount  of 
credit,  no  doubt  it  became  the  fashion  to  receive 
baptism  from  him.” 

To  “  obey  ”  any  call  requires  faith ;  and  to  sub- 
mit  to  any  ceremony  implies  want.  This,  notwith¬ 
standing  hypocrites  who  make  an  investment  of 
their  so-called  obediences  and  submissions. 

XIV.  Page  82. 

“  We  ought  to  be  just  as  tolerant  of  an  imperfect 
creed  as  we  are  of  an  imperfect  practice.” 

The  author,  as  we  have  read  him,  here  does  him¬ 
self  an  injustice.  The  term  “imperfect”  seems  to 
be  used  in  this  sentence  and  in  the  context  in  two 
senses :  imperfection  of  creed  may  mean  simply  in¬ 
completeness,  but  an  “  imperfect  practice  ”  may  mean 
viciousness.  This  latter  seems  to  be  the  author’s 
meaning,  for  he  has  just  been  writing  of  “  some  very 
unchristian  vices.”  Now  we  may  be  tolerant  of  in¬ 
completeness  and  weakness  (seeing  we  are  all  in¬ 
complete  and  weak),  yet  we  are  not  called  upon  to 
be  tolerant  to  vice,  —  a  fact  we  need  not  have  pointed 
out  but  for  the  ambiguity  of  the  term  “  imperfect.” 


1 

CONTROVERSIAL  NOTES  ON  “  ECCE  HOMO.”  339 
XV.  Pages  86,  87. 

“  Now  of  these  prophets  Christ  was  distinctly 
one  and  the  greatest  of  all.” 

Say  rather  that  as  they  all  prophesied  of  him,  they 
are  not  to  be  mentioned  comparatively  with  him. 
“  Greatest”  indicates  degree,  but  what  of  the  nature f 
Christ  was  not  a  prophet  in  the  same  sense  that  Eli¬ 
jah  and  Ezekiel  and  Daniel  were  prophets.  As  the 
author  himself  has  well  said  —  “  How  the  truth  came 
to  the  prophet  he  himself  knew  not;”  but  Jesus 
Christ  was  the  inspirer  and  the  inspiration  of  the 
prophets:  “they  wrote  of  me;”  —  he  was  himself 
the  message,  not  merely  a  messenger.  The  monarch 
is  never  one  of  the  heralds. 

XVI.  Page  89. 

“We  conclude  that  though  it  is  alwa}^s  easy  for 
thoughtless  men  to  be  orthodox,  yet  to  grasp  with 
any  strong  practical  apprehension  the  theology  of 
Christ  is  a  thing  as  hard  to  practise  as  his  moral 
law.” 

We  cannot  see  the  particular  pertinence  of  the 
opinion  that  “  it  is  always  easy  for  thoughtless  men 
to  be  orthodox ;  ”  all  things  are  equally  easy  to 
<4  thoughtless  men  ;  ”  still  it  ought  to  be  known  that 
{hough  some  “  thoughtless  men  ”  may  be  orthodox, 
yet  all  who  are  orthodox  are  not  necessarily  thought- 


340 


ECCE  DEUS. 


less  men.  Is  it  not  unworthy  of  the  subject  to  throw 
out  insinuations  as  to  the  capacity  or  morality  of 
opponents?  Then  as  to  the  doctrine:  Why  is  the 
moral  law  of  Jesus  Christ  hard  to  practise?  Is  it 
not  because  the  heart  is  out  of  sympathy  with  his 
p  rposes?  The  light  is  not  distressing  to  the  healthy 
eye.  Why  should  it  be  harder  to  do  right  than  to 
do  wrong?  Jesus  Christ  says  that  his  “yoke  is 
easy  and  his  burden  is  light. ”  We  cannot  admit 
the  difference  which  the  author  assumes  between 
Christ’s  theology  and  Christ’s  moral  law.  Christ’s 
moral  law  has  no  existence  apart  from  his  theology. 
The  theology  of  Jesus  Christ  was  the  Fatherhood  of 
God,  and  out  of  that  great  doctrine  came  all  the  prac¬ 
tical  life  which  Christ  preached  and  exemplified. 

XVII.  Page  102. 

“  It  may  seem  to  us  that  Socrates  and  Christ 
were  in  fact  occupied  in  the  same  way ;  certainly 
both  lived  in  the  midst  of  admiring  disciples,  whose 
minds  and  characters  were  formed  by  their  words ; 
both  discussed  moral  questions,  the  one  with  me¬ 
thodical  reasoning  as  a  Greek  addressing  Greeks, 
the  other  with  the  authoritative  tone  and  earnestness 
of  a  Jew.” 

In  the  twelfth  chapter  we  have  already  adverted 
to  the  value  of  “  the  authoritative  tone  and  earnest¬ 
ness  of  a  Jew.”  If  the  author’s  judgment  be  correct, 


CONTROVERSIAL  NOTES  ON  “  ECCE  HOMO.”  34I 

then  vve  may  well  prefer  “  methodical  reasoning  ”  to 
an  u  authoritative  tone.”  To  put  Socrates  and  Christ 
together  in  this  manner  is  simply  to  ignore  Christ’s 
own  declaration  of  divine  origin  and  power.  The 
words  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  reported  by  those  who 
heard  them,  are  before  us,  and  they  profess  to  be 
marked,  not  by  the  authoritative  tone  and  earnest¬ 
ness  of  a  Jew,  but  by  the  authoritative  tone  and 
earnestness  of  the  Son  of  Man  and  Son  of  God. 
This  is  their  own  distinct  profession,  —  not  matter 
of  inference,  but  of  positive  and  literal  claim.  The 
author  either  believes  Christ’s  words  or  he  does  not 
believe  them ;  if  he  believes  them,  then  he  ought 
not  to  put  Socrates  and  Christ  together  as  he  has 
done ;  if  he  does  not  believe  them,  then  Christ  is 
not  the  good  man  whom  he  has  endeavored  to 
make  him  out  to  be.  From  our  point  of  view,  it 
is  a  poor  and  dishonoring  thing  to  say  of  the  Son 
of  God  that  he  spoke  with  “  the  authoritative  tone 
and  earnestness  of  a  Jew.”  His  enemies,  who  had 
daily  opportunity  of  listening  to  the  most  authorita¬ 
tive  and  dogmatic  teachers  in  the  world,  confessed 
that  “  never  man  spake  like  this  man,”  a  circum¬ 
stance  which  alone  would  warrant  the  inference  that 
there  was  a  life  and  a  power  in  his  communica¬ 
tions  which  could  not  be  accounted  for  by  u  the 
authoritative  tone  and  earnestness  of  a  Jew.” 


342 


ECCE  DEUS. 


XVIII.  Page  107. 

“  Socrates  holds  his  place  in  history  by  his 
thoughts  and  not  by  his  life,  Christ  by  his  life 
and  not  by  his  thoughts.” 

In  reply  we  venture  to  say  —  incorrect .  The  vital 
difference  between  Christ  and  all  other  teachers  is 
this  —  the  perfect  identity  of  his  life  and  thoughts. 
This  consistency  alone  puts  him  beyond  the  range 
of  comparison  with  any  other  man.  We  often  find 
noble  thoughts  associated  with  imperfect  morality, 
and  spotless  morality  may  be  found  detached  from 
any  marked  power  of  thought ;  but  in  Christ  the 
consistency  was  perfect  —  a  consistency  which  is  it¬ 
self  one  of  the  clearest  arguments  in  favor  of  his 
Godhead.  All  men  are  self-discrepant ;  Jesus  Christ 
was  self-consistent. 

XIX.  Page  1 19. 

“  This  monarchy  was  essentially  despotic,  and 
might,  in  spite  of  the  goodness  of  the  sovereign, 
have  had  some  mischievous  consequences,  if  he  had 
remained  too  long  among  his  subjects,  and  if  his 
dictation  had  descended  too  much  into  particulars.” 

A  theocracy  must  be  despotic.  The  sovereign  and 
the  monarchy  in  such  a  case  are  inseparable.  The 
sovereign  of  a  theocracy  must  be  good  —  (u  in  spite 
of  the  goodness  of  the  sovereign  ”)  —  but  how  he 
can  “  remain  too  long  among  his  subjects  ”  does  not 


CONTROVERSIAL  NOTES  ON  “  ECCE  HOMO.”  343 

appear.  The  author’s  view  represents  Christ  rather 
as  a  shrewd  propagandist  than  as  the  Son  of  God. 
In  all  these  remarks  the  author  appears  to  have 
overlooked  the  fact  that  Christ  came  not  for  a  plan, 
but  with  a  plan.  If  he  came  without  a  plan,  his 
“  authoritative  tone”  would  hardly  stand  him  in  good 
stead ;  and  if  he  came  with  a  plan,  he  must  have 
had  something  more  than  the  “  earnestness  of  a 
Jew.”  With  respect  to  the  possibility  of  his  “re¬ 
maining  too  long,”  it  is  forgotten,  apparently,  that 
from  the  beginning  he  spoke  of  his  “  hour.”  The 
time  was  fixed. 

XX.  Page  167. 

“  This  third  feeling  is  the  love,  not  of  the  race 
nor  of  the  individual ;  it  is  the  love,  not  of  all  men, 
nor  yet  of  every  man,  but  of  the  man  in  every 
man.” 

Say,  rather,  of  the  God  in  every  man.  The  author 
has  well  pointed  out  on  another  page  that  the  normal 
condition  of  society  in  the  earliest  ages  was  that  of 
mutual  enmity.  We  honor  man  most  when  we  see 
most  of  God  in  him.  The  author  has  forcibly  shown 
that  the  idea  of  immortality  gave  a  new  view  of 
injustice  and  suffering  by  opening  up  possibilities 
of  retribution  which  could  not  have  existed  in  the 
limited  term  of  human  life  on  the  earth  ;  so,  on  the 
same  principle,  it  may  be  pointed  out  that  in  pro- 


344 


ECCE  DEUS. 


portion  as  man  recognizes  the  divine  image  in  man, 
will  he  take  an  enlightened  interest  in  himself  and 
in  the  destinies  of  the  race.  Man  has  everything  to 
fear  from  an  atheistic  view  of  his  own  personality 
and  destiny.  It  is  the  divine  element  that  gives  man 
his  l  ight  position. 

XXI.  Page  16S. 

“  We  save  a  man  from  drowning,  whether  he  is 
amiable  or  the  contrary,  and  we  should  consider  it 
right  to  do  so,  even  though  we  knew  him  to  be  a 
very  great  criminal,  simply  because  he  is  a  man.” 

True;  but  is  not  this  a  commonplace?  And  in  so 
far  as  it  is  valuable,  is  it  not  valuable  by  reason  of 
.something  deeper  than  is  expressed?  We  save  a 
horse  from  drowning,  whether  he  is  vicious,  or  the 
contrary,  and  we  should  consider  it  right  to  do  so 
even  though  we  knew  him  to  have  thrown  his  last 
rider  (and  even  though  that  rider  be  our  best  friend), 
simply  because  he  is  a  horse.  What  then?  Evi¬ 
dently  there  is  a  law  of  salvation  among  men . 
Anything  is  saved  in  proportion  to  its  real  or  sup¬ 
posed  value  to  ?nan.  Who  would  care  to  save  a 
straw  in  comparison  to  saving  a  letter?  Who  would 
risk  his  life  for  a  floating  chip,  yet  who  would  not 
make  strenuous  endeavors  to  recover  a  note-book 
which  had  dropped  into  the  river?  If  we  had  to 
make  our  choice  between  saving  a  man  or  a  horse 


CONTROVERSIAL  NOTES  ON  “  ECCE  HOMO.”  345 

from  drowning,  wo  should  of  course  elect  to  save  the 
man,  because  of  his  rank  in  creation.  But  take  the 
question  upon  practical  grounds.  It  is  observed,  for 
example,  that  two  human  beings  are  drowning  ;  the 
observer  instantly  desires  their  salvation  on  the  simple 
ground  of  common  humanity  ;  but  tell  the  observer 
that  one  of  the  human  beings  is  his  own  brother,  and 
instantly  we  shall  have  a  modification  of  the  principle 
laid  down  in  quotation  21st.  But  telk  the  observer 
that  it  is  not  his  brother ,  but  his  own  child ,  and  then 
say  for  whom  he  will  make  the  most  perilous  and 
costly  attempts  at  restoration?  The  observer  would 
have  done  much  to  rescue  anothef  man’s  child,  but 
what  effort  would  he  spare  when  his  own  son  was 
in  question?  This  may  be  called  selfishness,  yet 
there  may  not  be  a  particle  of  selfishness  in  it.  Men 
would  miss  the  deepest  and  grandest  views  of  human 
nature  if  it  were  not  for  the  love  they  bear  to  their 
own  offspring.  When  the  parent  sees  his  own  child 
drowning  he  comes  to  know  something  of  God’s  feel¬ 
ing  in  respect  to  the  salvation  of  men.  Man  is 
God’s  child,  and  u  like  as  a  father  pitieth  his  chil¬ 
dren,  so  the  Lord  pitieth”  his  suffering  child.  While, 
therefore,  the  above  quotation  is  literally  correct  in 
principle,  it  gives  a  very  inadequate  view  of  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  human  salvation. 

*5* 


346 


ECCE  DEUS. 


XXII.  Page  182. 

The  author  represents  u  the  intellectual  man  ”  as 
asking,  “  What  has  Christianity  added  to  our  theo¬ 
retic  knowledge  of  morality?  it  may  have  made 
men  practically  more  moral,  but  has  it  added  any- 
•  thing  to  Aristotle’s  ethics?” 

Yes;  it  may  be  replied  in  addition  to  the  answer 
which  the  author  himself  has  given,  It  has  added 
God  to  them.  Morality  is  no  longer  philosophical, 
it  is  theological.  Aristotle  regarded  ethics  as  a  sub¬ 
division  of  jDolitical  science  ;  but  in  the  very  midst 
of  his  great  Ethical  Discourse,  Jesus  Christ  said,  “  Be 
ye  therefore  perfect  as  your  Father  in  heaven  is  per¬ 
fect.”  Aristotle  conducted  his  ethical  student  from 
dzlpoirjg.  to  q)(jopi](ng  •  Christ  leads  his  disciples  from 
calculations  of  chances  to  fellowship  with  the  very 
nature  of  God.  In  his  ethical  discussions  Aristotle 
ignores  any  connection  between  his  subject  and  an 
ideal  or  absolute  Good  ;  he  rather  seems  to  proceed 
upon  the  principle  laid  down  by  Meno,  u  that  a 
man’s  virtue  consists  in  his  being  competent  to  man¬ 
age  the  affairs  of  the  state,  and,  managing  them,  to 
do  good  to  its  friends,  evil  to  its  enemies,  and  to 
take  care  that  he  suffers  himself  nothing  of  that 
kind  ;  ”  on  the  other  hand,  as  we  have  pointed  out 
before,  Christ  makes  morality  the  practical  side  of 
theology :  “  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  .  .  . 


CONTROVERSIAL  NOTES  ON  “  ECCE  HOMO.”  347 

and  thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor.”  Aristotle’s  mas¬ 
ter  discussed  the  question  of  virtue  on  a  much  higher 
basis.  Plato  lays  it  down  that  virtue  cannot  be 
taught,  and  argues  that  it  is  not  hereditary,  else 
Themistocles,  Thucydides,  and  other  virtuous  men, 
would  have  had  sons  worthv  of  themselves  ;  and 
adopts  tne  conclusion,  that  as  virtue  can  neither  come 
by  nature  nor  be  taught,  that  it  is  bestowed  upon  cer¬ 
tain  men  by  “  divine  fate.”  This  is  good  so  far,  at 
least,  as  it  recognizes  a  divine  element  in  virtue,  for 
atheism  is  corrupt  throughout — a  fool’s  theology- — 
a  madman’s  morality!  We  cannot  see  the  appropri- 
ateness  of  the  author’s  remark,  that  u  Christianity  has 
no  ambition  to  invade  the  provinces  of  the  moralist 
or  the  casuist.”  (P.  182.)  Christianity  not  only  in¬ 
vades  them,  but  revolutionizes  them,  breaks  up  their 
very  foundations,  and  consumes  their  sophistical  quib¬ 
bling  and  refinements.  Bad  morality  or  casuistry 
cannot  be  tolerated  by  Jesus  Christ  ;  how,  then, 
can  Christianity  be  said  not  to  invade  the  province 
of  either?  If  it  gives  no  systematic  form,  it  gives  the 
inspiring  life. 

XXIII.  Page  198. 

“  It  was  the  inspiration,  the  law-making  power, 
that  gave  Christ  and  his  disciples  courige  to  shake 
themselves  free  from  the  fetters  even  of  a  divine 


law.” 


34§ 


ECCE  DEUS. 


This  “  law-making  power  ”  is  to  be  guarded  very 
watchfully.  Though  every  man  may  be  a  law  unto 
himself,  yet  there  must  be  a  common  law  to  which 
individual  legislators  should  appeal.  Euthyphron  de 
fined  holiness  to  be  u  that  which  is  pleasing  to  the 
gods,”  but  Socrates  soon  brought  him  to  confess  that 
the  gods  themselves  were  divided  about  “  things  pleas¬ 
ing”  and  “  things  not  pleasing  ;  ”  that  what  was  pleas¬ 
ing  to  Jupiter  might  be  odious  to  Saturn,  what  was 
pleasing  to  Vulcan  might  be  odious  to  Juno.  We 
should  find  much  of  the  same  difficulty  among  the 
law-makers  that  Plato  thus  found  among  the  gods, 
in  the  absence  of  common  law.  We  understand  that 
law  to  be  given  in  the  Christian  writings.  On  all 
questions  in  casuistry  the  utmost  freedom  of  personal 
legislation  is  allowed  ;  but  on  all  questions  of  prin¬ 
ciple  the  words  of  the  Son  of  God  are  final.  This 
is  the  generally-accepted  creed  of  the  orthodox :  are 
they  “thoughtless  men”?  With  regard  to  “  shaking 
themselves  free  from  the  fetters  even  of  a  divine  law,” 
it  may  be  well  to  note  that  even  in  matters  of  tem¬ 
porary  regulation  men  no  more  “  shake  themselves 
free  from  the  fetters  of  divine  law  ”  than  a  man  shakes 
himself  free  from  the  fetters  of  his  first  garments. 
The  man  grows  out  of  them  ;  but  because  he  has 
become  too  large  for  a  particular  set  of  garments, 
it  does  not  follow  that  therefore  he  must  remain 


CONTROVERSIAL  NOTES  ON  “  ECCE  HOMO."  349 

naked  ever  after.  It  should  be  noted,  too,  that  he 
who  gave  the  law  gave  also  the  capacity  of  growth  ; 
and  as  men  grow  by  the  favor  of  the  legislator,  it 
may  be  possible  to  find  some  more  grateful,  not  to 
say  more  accurate,  expression  than  “  shaking  them¬ 
selves  f*ee  from  the  fetters  even  of  a  divine  law.” 
The  expression  gives  the  idea  of  bondage,  not  of 
adaptation ;  of  despotism  on  the  part  of  God,  not 
of  temporary  incapacity  on  the  part  of  man. 

XXIV.  Pages  202,  203. 

u  It  may  sometimes  strike  us  that  the  time  which 
he  devoted  to  acts  of  beneficence  and  the  relief  of 
ordinary  j^hysical  evils  might  have  been  given  to 
works  more  permanently  beneficial  to  the  race.  .  .  . 
He  might  have  left  to  all  subsequent  ages  more 
instruction  if  he  had  bestowed  less  time  upon  di¬ 
minishing  slightly  the  mass  of  evil  around  him,  and 
lengthening  by  a  span  the  short  lives  of  the  genera¬ 
tion  in  the  midst  of  which  he  lived.” 

There  is  more  in  this,  we  imagine,  than,  as  the 
author  suggests,  u  that  Christ  merely  reduced  to 
practice  his  own  principle”  u  of  a  positive  rather 
than  a  negative  service  of  man”  (p.  203).  Jesus 
Christ  never  relieved  physical  diseases  without  point¬ 
ing  out,  by  the  very  condition  required,  that  they 
were  the  result  of  moral  causes.  He  saw  more  than 
the  leprosy  on  the  body ;  he  saw  the  deadly  ulcer 


ECCE  DEUS. 


35° 

on  the  soul.  Not  only  so,  he  had  readier  access  to 
the  body  than  to  the  spirit,  and  so,  as  we  have  had 
repeated  occasion  to  say,  he  began  at  the  most  ac¬ 
cessible  point,  and  worked  into  the  deeper  nature. 
We  conceive,  therefore,  that  the  author’s  argument 
is  untenable.  As  to  the  value  of  affirmative  service 
there  cannot  be  two  opinions,  but  affirmative  service 
is  not  confined  to  the  body ;  an  idea  is  certainly  of 
greater  value  than  a  restored  hand,  but  if  the  suf¬ 
ferer  refused  permission  to  his  soul,  and  could  barely 
exercise  faith  enough  to  bring  his  body  into  a  right 
relation  to  Jesus  Christ,  the  Healer  could  begin  only 
on  the  offered  terms,  yet  with  the  hope  that  the 
healed  hand  might  prepare  the  way  for  the  healing 
of  the  moral  nature.  We  do  not  consider  the  au¬ 
thor  as  suggesting  to  Jesus  Christ  that  he  did  not 
make  the  best  use  of  his  time ;  the  author  would 
undoubtedly  shrink  from  so  immodest  (not  to  say 
profane)  a  protrusion  of  his  own  wisdom  ;  he  is,  as 
we  take  it,  simply  expressing  the  feeling  of  a  reader 
who  looks  at  Christ’s  life  from  a  purely  human 
stand-point. 

XXV.  Page  207. 

“The  enthusiasm  of  humanity  in  Christians  is  not 

only  their  supreme,  but  their  only  law.” 

This  is  bold,  certainly;  on  what  proof  does  it  rest? 
Allowing  this  to  be  precisely  as  the  author  puts  it,  why 
should  the  effect  be  dissociated  from  the  cause?  Love 


CONTROVERSIAL  NOTES  ON  “  ECCE  HOMO.” 

of  man  is  put  by  Jesus  Christ  as  the  consequent  of  love 
of  God  —  the  enthusiasm  of  God  first,  then  the  enthu¬ 
siasm  of  humanity.  Who  ever  knew  anything  of  the 
enthusiasm  of  humanity,  in  its  true  sense,  until  Christ 
revealed  the  Father?  u  The  age  of  humanity  did  not 
begin  till  after  Christianity.”  ( Luthardt .)  Through¬ 
out  the  teaching  of  Jesus  Christ  the  patei’nal  idea 
runs  as  a  stream  of  life ;  it  is  because  men  are  the 
children  of  one  Father  that  they  are  related  to  one 
another.  The  Christian  writings  on  this  subject  seem 
to  reveal  two  things:  (i)  That  there  is  a  spurious 
enthusiasm  of  humanity,  and  (2)  that  the  true  en¬ 
thusiasm  of  humanity  is  inseparable  from  a  filial 
love  of  God.  There  is  not  only  an  enthusiasm  of 
humanity,  but  there  is  a  fanaticism  of  humanity. 
Sympathy  with  God  is  the  life  of  the  former.  Jesus 

Christ  never  could  have  been  Son  of  Man  if  he  had 

/ 

not  first  been  Son  of  God;  —  why  should  we  not 
follow  his  law  and  development  of  enthusiasm? 
He  proceeded  from  the  divine  to  the  human ;  can 
we  proceed  by  a  better  way?  It  is  affecting,  and 
not  a  little  instructive,  to  watch  how  he  retires 
again  and  again  from  the  multitude,  that  he  may 
renew  his  enthusiasm  of  humanity  by  secret  com 
munion  with  God.  It  will  be  admitted  that  the 
enthusiasm  of  humanity  never  reached  such  perfect¬ 
ness  and  intensity  as  in  Jesus  Christ ;  but  how  did 


353 


ECCE  DEUS. 


he  repair  the  daily  exhaustion  which  it  involved? 
Do  not  his  nights  of  prayer  best  explain  his  days 
of  toil?  Does  not  his  constant  reference  to  his 
Father’s  will  show  that  the  law-making  power  in 
man  is  truthful  and  safe  only  so  long  as  it  renews 
itself  at  the  divine  source? 

XXVI.  Page  21 1. 

“  Prevention  is  better  than  cure,  and  it  is  now 
clear  to  all  that  a  large  part  of  human  suffering  is 
preventible  by  improved  social  arrangements.” 

True ;  but  this  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  the 
morality  of  Christ.  Is  there  not,  however,  a  good 
deal  of  confusion  in  the  use  of  the  terms  “  preven¬ 
tion  ”  and  “preventible”?  We  cannot  “prevent” 
the  great  fundamental  fact  in  human  history,  viz., 
the  Fall.  We  have  to  work  upon  a  “lost”  human¬ 
ity,  therefore  “  prevention  ”  has  no  part  whatever 
in  the  business  of  salvation.  Prevention  can  be  ap¬ 
plied  only  to  details,  and  so  far  its  application  is 
undoubtedly  useful.  Had  we  to  map  out  a  course 
for  pristine  man,  we  should  probably  be  no  wiser 
than  God  himself,  but  begin  precisely  where  he  be¬ 
gan  ;  that  is  to  say,  at  prevention.  It  is  a  fact  not 
sufficiently  considered,  that  prevention  was  actually 
tried  in  Eden,  and  failed ;  yet  moralists  and  econo¬ 
mists  bring  up  the  idea  of  prevention  as  if  it  had  not 
dawned  on  mortal  genius  until  these  latter  days ! 


CONTROVERSIAL  NOTES  ON  u  ECCE  HOMO.”  353 
XXVII.  Page  218. 

a  And  if  the  progress  of  science  and  civilization 
has  put  into  our  hands  the  means  of  benefiting  our 
kind  more  and  more  comprehensively  than  the  first 
Christians  could  hope  to  do  —  if,  instead  of  undoing 
a  little  harm,  and  comforting  a  few  unfortunates,  we 
have  the  means  of  averting  countless  misfortunes 
and  raising,  by  the  right  employment  of  our  knowl¬ 
edge  and  power  of  contrivance,  the  general  standard 
of  happiness  —  we  are  not  to  inquire  whether  the 
New  Testament  commands  us  to  use  these  means, 
but  whether  the  spirit  of  humanity  commands  it.” 

The  great,  the  inexcusable  error  in  this  statement 
is  the  implication,  that  possibly  the  New  Testament 
may  be  less  philanthropic  than  u  the  spirit  of  human¬ 
ity,”  and  this  we  take  to  be  an  insult  to  the  Son  of 
man.  The  author  apparently  ignores  the  fact  that 
Christianity  proposes  to  deal  with  a  sick  man,  not 
with  a  healthy  man ;  “  they  that  be  whole  need  not 
a  physician  ;  ”  Jesus  Christ  Repeatedly  said  that  he 
came  to  call  sinners ,  and  not  the  righteous,  to  repent- 
ance  —  that  he  came  to  seek  and  to  save  that  which 
was  lost.  He  did  not  come  with  a  theory  of  preven- 
tion,  but  with  a  scheme  of  ;  salvation ;  he  did  not 
propose  to  u  comfort  a  few  unfortunates,”  but  to  save, 
the  world.  What  is  the  use  of  a  theory  of  prevention 
in  a  churchyard,  so  far  as  the  dead  are  concerned? 
Weeds  may  be  prevented  growing  on  the  graves,  but 

} 

i 

l 


354 


ECCE  DEVS. 


of  what  advantage  is  this  to  those  who  are  in  the 
graves?  Resurrection,  not  prevention,  alone  can 
benefit  the  dead.  The  author  appears  to  ignore 
not  only  the  statements  of  revelation,  but  the  testi¬ 
mony  of  consciousness  as  to  the  moral  condition  of 
human  nature,  and  to  be  more  concerned  for  a  lav/ 
of  philanthropy  which  will  “  avert  countless  misfor¬ 
tunes”  than  for  a  salvation  which  encompasses  the 
-  whole  case.  The  physician  is  not  called  upon  to 
decide  between  prevention  and  cure  ;  the  patient  is 
sick,  and  must  be  cured  if  possible.  Jesus  Christ 
had  not  to  consider  the  case  of  unfallen  beings,  but 
of  men  who  had  lost  their  moral  status.  u  Science 
and  civilization  ”  have  enabled  us  to  decorate  the 
sick  man’s  room,  and  to  make  all  outward  circum¬ 
stances  more  pleasant  to  him,  but  not  to  touch  his 
disease.  If  the  New  Testament,  recognizing  the 
urgency  of  the  case,  does  not  dwell  upon  mere  pre¬ 
ventives,  but  points  at  once  to  the  seat  of  the  mal¬ 
ady,  and  indicates  the  only  possible  restoratives,  who 
shall  say  that  it  is  deficient  in  “  the  spirit  of  hu¬ 
manity  ”? 

It  would  be  a  great  mistake  to  imagine  that  the 
pre-Christian  philosophies  troubled  themselves  even 
to  u  undo  a  little  harm  and  comfort  a  few  unfortu¬ 
nates,”  much  less  to  “  avert  countless  misfortunes.” 
On  this  point  the  words  of  Baron  Macaulay  are  well 


CONTROVERSIAL  NOTES  ON  “  ECCE  IIOMO.”  3^5 

worth  repeated  perusal.  “  The  ancient  philosophy 
disdained  to  be  useful,  and  was  content  to  be  sta¬ 
tionary.  It  dealt  largely  in  theories  of  moral  per¬ 
fection,  which  were  so  sublime  that  they  never  could 
be  more  than  theories  ;  in  attempts  to  solve  insoluble 
enigmas ;  in  exhortations  to  the  attainment  of  unat¬ 
tainable  frames  of  mind.  It  could  not  condescend 
to  the  humble  office  of  ministering  to  the  comfort 
of  human  beings.  All  the  schools  contemned  that 
office  as  degrading,  some  censured  it  as  immoral. 
Once,  indeed,  Posidonius,  a  distinguished  writer  of 
the  age  of  Cicero  and  Ccesar,  so  far  forgot  himself  as 
to  enumerate,  among  the  humbler  blessings  which 
mankind  owed  to  philosophy,  the  discovery  of  the 
principle  of  the  arch,  and  the  introduction  of  the  use 
of  metals.  This  eulogy  was  considered  as  an  affront, 
and  was  taken  up  with  proper  spirit.  Seneca  vehe¬ 
mently  disclaims  these  insulting  compliments.  Phi 
losophy,  according  to  him,  has  nothing  to  do  with 
teaching  men  to  rear  arched  roofs  over  their  heads. 
The  true  philosopher  does  not  care  whether  he  has 
an  arched  roof  or  any  roof.  Philosophy  has  nothing 
to  do  with  teaching  men  the  uses  of  metals.  She 
teaches  us  to  be  independent  of  all  material  sub¬ 
stances,  of  all  mechanical  contrivances.  The  wise 
man  lives  according  to  nature.  Instead  of  attempt¬ 
ing  to  add  to  the  physical  comforts  of  his  species,  he 


356 


ECCE  DEUS. 


regrets  that  his  lot  was  not  cast  in  that  golden  age 
when  the  human  race  had  no  protection  against  the 
cold  but  the  skins  of  wild  beasts,  no  screen  from  the 
sun  but  a  cavern.  To  impute  to  such  a  man  any 
share  in  the  invention  or  improvement  of  a  plough,  a 
ship,  or  a  mill,  is  an  insult.  1  In  my  own  time,’ 
says  Seneca,  4  there  have  been  inventions  of  this 
sort,  transparent  windows,  tubes  for  diffusing  warmth 
equally  through  all  parts  of  a  building,  short-hand 
which  has  been  carried  to  such  perfection,  that  a 
writer  can  keep  pace  with  the  most  rapid  speaker. 
But  the  inventing  of  such  things  is  drudgery  for  the 
lowest  slaves ;  philosophy  lies  deeper.  It  is  not  her 
office  to  teach  men  how  to  use  their  hands ;  the  object 
of  her  lessons  is  to  form  the  soul.  Non  est,  inquam, 
instrumentorum  ad  usus  necessarios  opifex.’  ”  *  So 
much  for  the  ancient  philosophy,  and  we  very  much 
doubt  whether  what  the  author  of  Ecce  Homo  calls 
“  the  blessed  light  of  science  ”  (p.  353)  is  not  likely, 
if  left  to  itself,  to  do  as  much  to  favor  a  gross  and 
atheistic  materialism  as  the  philosophy  of  Seneca 
favored  the  cant  of  a  useless  and  selfish  sentimental¬ 
ity.  Christianity  occupies  an  independent  position. 
Its  watchwords  are  Glory  to  God  and  Good-will 
toward  —  men  the  devotional  and  the  useful  —  the 
highest  love  of  the  soul  turned  to  the  most  practical 
service  of  man. 


*  Essay  on  Lord  Bacon. 


CONTROVERSIAL,  NOTES  ON  UECCE  HOMO.”  35'/ 

In  reading  Ecce  Homo  our  chief  dissatisfaction 
arose  from  the  fact  that  the  author  did  not  recognize 
the  mystery  of  the  Incarnation.  Although  he  speaks 
on  the  second  page  of  u  the  predestined  Founder,” 
yet  the  whole  argument  of  the  book  is  constructed 
without  any  reference  to  the  pre-incarnate  life  of 
Christ,  a  life  to  which  Christ  himself  makes  repeated 
allusion,  in  his  prayers  especially.  The  first  sentence 
in  Ecce  Homo  illustrates  this — “The  Christian 
Church  sprang  from  a  movement  which  was  not 
begun  by  Christ.”  In  the  very  lowest  and  weakest 
possible  sense,  if  in  any  sense  at  all,  can  this  be  true, 
but  according  to  a  complete  collation  of  the  facts  it  is 
false.  The  Christian  writings  give  us  to  understand 
that  before  the  world  began  God  had  a  great  purpose 
in  relation  to  the  history  of  man,  and  that  the  out¬ 
working  of  that  purpose  underlay  and  interpenetrated 
all  human  history.  There  may  be  influence  without 
manifestation.  Christ  was  as  able  to  conduct  the 
movement  anterior  to  his  Incarnation,  as  he  is  now 
able  (in  the  author’s  own  words)  to  “  visit  his  people 
for  the  future  only  in  refreshing  inspirations  and  great 
acts  of  providential  justice”  (p.  119).  If  he  can 
return,  could  he  not  precede?  By  regarding  the 
Incarnation  as  part  of  a  continuous  development  of 
a  divine  purpose  we  are  saved  from  the  unprofitable 
task  of  studying  an  unconnected  page  or  a  detached 


358 


ECCE  DEUS. 


limb,  and  are  also  saved  from  the  perils  of  detail  by 
having  to  work  on  a  vast  body  of  evidence  which  is 
homogeneous,  cumidative,  and  self-explanatory.  From 
this  point  of  view  we  escape  the  pain  of  regarding 
Christ  as  being  hesitant  or  uncertain  in  his  move¬ 
ments  ;  and  the  words  and  actions  which  transcend 
our  plane  of  criticism  or  comprehension  are  referable 
to  the  mysteriousness  of  his  descent  or  the  vastness 
of  a  design  which  can  be  only  fractionally  disclosed. 
It  may  be  answered  that  the  author  did  not  intend  to 
traverse  so  wide  a  ground  as  that  which  is  opened  by 
the  question  of  Jesus  Christ’s  pre-existence  :  this  plea, 
however,  is  futile,  for  though  he  might  not  be  pre¬ 
pared  to  traverse  the  ground,  he  was  not  at  liberty  to 
ignore  the  fact .  He  was  not  called  upon  to  write  a 
theological  treatise,  but  he  was  called  upon  to  recog¬ 
nize  the  clear  and  repeated  declarations  of  Jesus 
Christ  as  to  his  procession  from  the  Father.  Given  a 
Jew  who  unexpectedly  took  upon  himself  to  do  what 
Christ  did,  and  we  shall  have  one  line  of  interpreta¬ 
tion  and  judgment ;  but  given  the  Son  of  God  who 
from  unbeginning  time  determined  to  do  a  certain 
work  upon  the  earth,  and  we  shall  have  a  line  of 
interpretation  and  judgment  peculiar  to  itself.  Is 
there  no  difference  between  the  start-points?  No 
author  is  at  liberty  to  join  Christ  as  u  simply  a  young 
man  of  promise,  popular  with  those  who  knew  him, 


CONTROVERSIAL  NOTES  ON  “  ECCE  HOMO.”  359 

and  appearing  to  enjoy  the  Divine  favor.”  If  he  does 
so  41  place  himself  in  imagination,”  he  'will  be  in 
danger  of  bending  the  facts  to  the  theory,  instead  of 
taking  the  mould  of  the  theory  from  the  facts.  We 
subneit  with  all  due  deference  that  w*hile  the  author 
of  Ecce  Homo  was  at  liberty  to  determine  the  point 
from  which  his  u  survey  ”  should  be  taken,  he  was 
bound  to  remember  that  there  were  circumstances 
narrated  in  the  very  documents  out  of  which  he  gets 
his  facts  which  give  significance  to  every  phase  of 
Christ’s  life,  and  without  which  that  life  is  incongru¬ 
ous  as  a  narrative,  and  powerless  as  a  redemption. 
The  gardener  is  at  liberty  to  view  the  earth  in  patches 
and  neatly  enclosed  fractions,  but  the  astronomer  must 
view  it  as  part  of  a  system ;  and  the  danger  to  which 
some  inquirers  are  exposed,  and  into  which  we  believe 
the  author  of  Ecce  Homo  has  fallen,  is  that  of  mis¬ 
taking  gardening  for  astronomy.  Look  at  Christ  as 
“  simply  a  young  man  of  promise,”  and  then  regard 
him  as  begotten  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  the  most 
contrary  conclusions  will  be  reached.  In  the  one 
case,  he  will  come  up  out  of  the  earth  with  all  its 
ignorance  and  imperfection ;  in  the  other,  he  will 
descend  upon  it  from  heaven  with  a  divine  purpose  to 
reveal  and  establish.  Now  what  is  Christ’s  own  testi¬ 
mony? —  “I  proceeded  forth  and  came  from  God; 
neither  came  I  of  myself,  but  he  sent  me.”  We  are 


360 


ECCE  DEUS. 


therefore  not  at  liberty  to  examine  the  life  of  such  a 
speaker,  as  though  he  had  appeared  under  the  usual 
conditions  of  human  existence.  Accepting  this  ac¬ 
count  as  correct,  the  mission  of  such  a  man  must  be 
fundamental ;  his  most  emphatic  words  will  be  une¬ 
qual  to  the  expression  of  all  his  thought,  and  his 
morality  will  be  marked  by  characteristics  of  its  own. 
Critics  who  have  been  able  to  hold  equal  fellowship 
with  Plato  and  Aristotle,  Socrates  and  Cicero,  will 
realize  the  impassable  distance  which  separates  the 
earthly  from  the  heavenly  ;  they  will  feel  the  “  aston¬ 
ishment”  which  filled  the  doctors  in  the  Temple,  and 
even  when  unwilling  to  submit  they  will  feel  unable 
to  reply. 

It  may  be  suggested  that  the  author  does  not  accept 
the  Christian  writings  in  their  entirety.  Then  he  was 
bound,  we  submit,  to  indicate  his  principle  of  eclec¬ 
ticism.  He  quotes  largely  from  the  first  three  Gos¬ 
pels,  and  makes  one  or  two  reserved  references  to  the 
fourth.  Now  by  what  law  does  he  make  choice?  If 
the  writings  are  authoritative  on  points  of  fact,  wherein 
are  they  defective  on  points  of  doctrine?  Without 
pressing  him  to  an  answer,  we  do  protest  against 
being  invited  to  conduct  an  inquiry  upon  unequal 
terms.  Before  we  start  we  must  know  each  other’s 
canons  of  criticism,  and  be  agreed  on  common  prin¬ 
ciples  of  interpretation  ;  at  all  events  we  must  know 


CONTROVERSIAL  NOTES  ON  ECCE  HOMO.”  361 

the  precise  sphere  of  inquiry  —  how  much  is  included, 
how  much  is  rejected.  We  cannot,  if  the  investiga¬ 
tion  is  to  be  mutual,  allow  the  author  to  indorse  or 
invalidate  documents  without  distinctly  telling  us  on 
what  principle  he  is  proceeding. 

The  author’s  proposal  to  discuss  the  morality  in 
contradistinction  to  the  theology  of  Jesus  Christ,  we 
cannot  but  regard  as  unsatisfactory.  Are  the  morality 
and  the  theology  separable?  If  for  the  sake  of  con¬ 
venience  a  division  be  made,  we  submit  that  the 
theology  should  stand  first,  for  the  sufficient  reason 
that  it  lies  at  the  basis  of  the  morality.  By  theology, 
as  used  in  this  connection,  cannot  of  course  be  meant 
the  formal  science  which  now  passes  under  that 
name  (a  science  which  has  probably  originated  three 
fourths  of  the  speculative  scepticism  of  the  age),  but 
the  idea  of  the  Father  which  was  ever  present  to 
the  mind  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  which  regulated  the 
whole  course  and  tone  of  his  teaching.  Morality  was 
not  discussed  by  Jesus  Christ  as  it  was  discussed  by 
Aristotle,  and  we  still  maintain,  as  was  stated  in  the 
thirteenth  chapter,  that  the  difference  between  Aris¬ 
totle’s  teaching  and  Christ’s  teaching  is  the  difference 
between  an  Investigation  and  a  Revelation.  By  re¬ 
garding  Jesus  Christ’s  morality  as  the  practical  side  of 
his  theology,  we  escape  the  errors  into  which,  as  it 
appears  to  us,  the  author  has  fallen  respecting  the 

16 


362 


ECCE  DEUS. 


incompleteness  of  Christ’s  moral  teaching.  When 
man’s  ideas  of  God  are  rectified  and  enlarged,  his  ideas 
of  practical  life  will  become  correspondingly  pure  and 
noble.  In  other  words,  when  a  man  loves  God,  he 
will  love  his  brother  also,  but  not  until  then  :  as  Christ 
puts  it,  the  question  is  one  of  cause  and  effect ;  and 
though  he  might  have  made  a  more  imposing  exhibi* 
lion  of  ethical  speculation  and  instruction,  so  far  as 
mere  words  are  concerned,  yet,  according  to  his  idea 
of  the  Father,  he  would  have  been  working  at  the 
wrong  end,  coloring  the  fruit  from  the  outside  instead 
of  renewing  and  strengthening  the  root,  merely  re¬ 
moving  withered  leaves  instead  of  vitalizing  the 
juices.  According  to  the  nature  of  the  fall  must  be 
the  nature  of  the  restoration :  the  fall  was  between 
man  and  God,  not  between  man  and  man  ;  so  the 
restoration  must  be  towards  God,  and  the  bpst  proof 
of  its  reality  will  be  found  in  constant  exhibitions  of 
good-will  towards  men.  It  may  be  true,  as  the  author 
of  Ecce  Homo  forcibly  says,  that  “  the  most  lost  cynic 
will  get  a  new  heart  by  learning  thoroughly  to  believe 
in  the  virtue  of  one  man”  (p.  177)?  but,  if  compari¬ 
sons  in  truth  be  allowed,  it  is  more  deeply  and  sub¬ 
limely  true  that  man  can  never  become  a  cynic  until 
he  has  lost  the  right  idea  of  God.  The  Fatherhood 
of  God  is  the  strongest  defence  againt  cynicism.  Re¬ 
verting  to  the  Fall,  as  the  true  start-point  from  which 


CONTROVERSIAL  NOTES  ON  “  ECCE  HOMO.”  363 

to  view  all  proposed  remedial  systems,  it  is  to  be  noted 
as  a  singular  fact  that  the  Fall  did  not  take  place  in 
an  advanced  condition  of  society,  when  civilization 
had  effeminated  manhood,  or  when  bad  management 
had  disorganized  social  relations  ;  it  took  place  before 
a  single  city  was  built,  before  human  society,  as  it  is 
now  understood,  was  founded  ;  it  was  not  a  failure  in 
speculative  ethics,  it  was  simply  a  misunderstanding 
of  God  —  a  lowering  of  his  authority  —  a  miscon¬ 
ception  of  his  nature  —  and  thus  a  terrible  immoral¬ 
ity.  It  is  important  to  remember  this,  because  from 
the  prevention  theory  it  might  be  inferred  that  human 
depravity  was  simply  a  question  of  adulterated  food, 
bad  drainage,  overcrowded  dwellings,  and  impure  air. 
It  is  forgotten  that  not  one  of  these  unfavorable  condi¬ 
tions  existed  in  the  days  of  Adam  and  Eve.  Nature 
was  in  its  purest  state,  and  yet,  unless  we  throw  the 
sacred  writings  out  of  court,  the  Fall  took  place  amid 
the  very  brightness  and  beauty  of  the  garden  of  Eden. 
So  that,  if  the  prevention  theorists  were  so  far  to  suc¬ 
ceed  in  their  work  as  actually  to  get  back  to  the  pure 
food,  the  pure  air,  and  the  pure  light  of  Paradise,  they 
would  still  have  to  grapple  with  a  deeper  problem 
than  can  be  solved  by  negative  philosophy.  Tnat 
problem  is  the  moral  ?iature  of  man.  How  can  he 
retain  his  power  to  commit  sin,  but  lose  the  disposi¬ 
tion?  Does  he  need  restraint  or  regeneration?  We 


364 


ECCE  DEUS. 


are  aware  that  these  inquiries  open  upon  a  sphere  of 
impenetrable  mystery  ;  but  we  are  also  aware  that  to 
shirk  them  is  not  to  escape  difficulty.  The  choice  is 
between  the  mystery  of  light  and  the  mystery  of  dark¬ 
ness.  Immediately  before  us  is  the  fact  that  7nan  is 
not  at  rest;  how  can  he  recover  his  balance?  By 
pure  air,  by  good  food,  by  ample  dwelling-room? 
Where  is  the  congruity  between  the  question  and  the 
ansv  er? 

It  has  been  urged  that  Ecce  Homo  is  a  fragment. 
A  fragment  of  what?  It  may  be  a  fragment  of  a 
larger  work,  but  is  not  therefore  of  necessity  a  frag¬ 
ment  of  the  life  of  Jesus  Christ.  If  it  has  ignored, 
for  all  practical  purposes,  the  interpretative  value  of 
the  Incarnation,  it  is  not  a  fragment ;  it  may  be  an 
unfinished  theory,  but  not  being  of  the  nature  of  the 
integer,  it  is  not,  it  cannot  be,  in  the  proper  sense  of 
the  term,  a  fragment  of  the  life  of  Christ.  A  man 
might  write  a  treatise  on  astronomy,  but  if  he  began 
by  declaring  that  the  earth  was  the  centre  of  the  uni* 
verse,  or  that  it  described  no  orbit  round  the  sun,  he 
would  not  be  allowed  to  shelter  himself  under  the 
plea  that  his  work  was  a  fragment ;  it  might  be  a 
fragment  of  his  manuscript,  but  viewed  in  the  light 
of  facts,  it  would  not  be,  nor  could  it  ever  be  made,  a 
fragment  of  the  geometry  of  creation.  Ecce  Homo 
treats  Christ  as  if  he  had  no  ancestry ;  fails  to  take 


CONTROVERSIAL  NOTES  ON  u  ECCE  HOMO.’’  365 

any  account  of  Christ’s  own  claim  to  pre-incarnate 
life,  and  ignores  those  peculiar  conditions  which  are 
themselves  the  best  explanation  of  the  mysteries  of 
his  doctrine,  and  which,  we  venture  to  think,  cannot 
be  ignored  without  moving  the  whole  life  out  of  its 
plane,  and  so  mistaking  its  fundamental  and  sovereign 
purpose. 

Not  until  the  present  writer  had  written  thus  far 
had  he  an  opportunity  of  reading  the  Preface  to  the 
fifth  edition  of  Ecce  Homo .  It  is  to  be  regretted, 
he  ventures  to  think,  that  a  portion  of  it  was  not 
given  in  the  original  Preface,  particularly  the  follow¬ 
ing  paragraph  :  u  He  was  concerned  with  four  writers 
who,  in  nearness  to  the  events  they  record,  and  prob¬ 
able  means  of  acquiring  information,  belong  to  the 
better  class  of  historical  witnesses,  but  whose  veracity 
has  been  strongly  impeached  by  critics,  both  on  the 
ground  of  internal  discrepancies,  and  of  the  intrinsic 
improbability  of  their  story.  Out  of  these  four  writers 
he  desired,  not  to  extract  a  life  of  Christ,  not  to  find 
out  all  that  can  be  known  about  him,  but  to  form 
such  a  rudimentary  conception  of  his  general  char¬ 
acter  and  objects  as  it  may  be  possible  to  form  while 
the  vexed  critical  questions  remain  in  abeyance.  The 
detection  of  discrepancies  in  the  documents  establishes 
a  certain  degree  of  independence  in  them,  and  thus 
gives  weight  to  their  agreements ;  in  particular,  the 


366 


ECCE  DEUS. 


wide  divergence  in  tone  and  subject-matter  of  the 
fourth  Gospel  from  the  other  three,  affords  a  strong 
presumption  in  favor  of  all  statements  in  which  it 
coincides  with  them.  The  rudiment  of  certainty 
which  the  writer  sought,  he  accordingly  expected 
to  find  in  the  consent  of  all  the  witnesses.  If  the 
statements  unanimously  attested  should  prove  numer¬ 
ous  enough  to  afford  any  outline  of  Christ’s  life,  how¬ 
ever  meagre,  he  proposed  to  rest  content  with  this.” 
It  is  due  to  the  author  of  Ecce  Homo  that  he  should 
thus  be  allowed,  on  the  pages  of  his  critic,  to  put  his 
own  case  in  his  own  way.  No  doubt  a  literary  man 
may  be  at  liberty  to  select  a  criterion  by  which  to 
guide  his  inquiries,  but  how  far  he  is  at  liberty  to 
describe  a  book  written  on  the  above  principle  as 
“a  Survey  of  the  Life  and  Work  of  Jesus  Christ,” 
may  be  a  question  on  which  the  author  and  the 
reader  might  differ.  It  would  appear,  too,  that  the 
author  must  have  exceeded  his  own  design,  for 
certainly  the  twenty  propositions  which  he  deduces 
from  Mark’s  Gospel  include  many  of  the  “  vexed 
critical  questions”  and  “intrinsic  improbabilities” 
which  he  wished  to  remain  in  abeyance,  such  as  the 
power  of  forgiving  sins,  the  working  of  miracles,  the 
claim  to  be  the  Messiah,  and  the  promise  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  The  author  conceives  himself  to  have  found 
“  the  rudiment  of  certainty  ”  when  all  the  four 


CONTROVERSIAL  NOTES  ON  “  ECCE  HOMO.”  3 67 

evangelists  agree  in  the  same  statement ;  that  is  to 
say,  if  any  incident  or  doctrine  be  found  in  all  the 
four  Gospels  it  may  be  accepted  as  a  basis  of  argu¬ 
ment.  This  is  an  extraordinary  canon  in  scriptural 
criticism  ;  it  at  once  throws  a  degree  of  discredit  upon 
each  of  the  witnesses  ;  his  testimony  is  not  accepted 
until  it  is  confirmed  ;  if  one  evangelist  confirms  it,  it 
is  not  enough ;  if  two  confirm  the  statement,  the 
evidence  is  still  incomplete  ;  all  the  four  must  agree, 
without  “  discrepancy  ”  or  u  improbability,”  other¬ 
wise,  u  the  rudiment  of  certainty”  is  not  found.  But 
this  rule  of  criticism  is  either  too  great  or  too  small. 
Why  should  four  be  the  number  of  witnesses  selected  ? 
What  answer  could  be  returned  to  the  objector  who 
carried  the  author’s  rule  a  little  farther  by  rejecting 
the  testimony  of  four  writers,  on  the  ground  that  all 
the  eleven  disciples  should  have  written  independent 
histories?  If  the  question  turn  upon  the  number  of 
witnesses,  it  is  clear  that  after  all  we  must  get  “  the 
rudiment  of  certainty”  out  of  the  testimony  of  the 
minority ;  and  if  out  of  the  minority  at  all,  why  not 
out  of  the  minority  of  those  who  have  written,  allow 
ins:  for  such  differences  as  must  attach  to  individu- 
ality  of  mind  and  habits  of  observation?  And  if  the 
four  witnesses  agree  in  the  twenty  comprehensive 
propositions  which  have  been  deduced  from  Mark’s 
Gospel,  so  comprehensive  as  to  include  almost  the 


368 


ECCE  DEUS. 


whole  of  Christianity,  why  may  they  not  have  ar¬ 
ranged  to  palm  oft'  the  story  upon  the  world  ?  But 
if  it  was  impossible  for  them  to  have  so  agreed,  why 
should  their  points  of  difference  be  points  of  doubt? 
On  the  author’s  principle,  any  four  men  may  combine 
in  the  production  of  a  book,  and  if  they  only  take  care 
to  agree  in  their  statements  they  may  rely  upon  a 
general  acceptance  of  their  testimony.  Is  “  the  rudi¬ 
ment  of  certainty  ”  not  to  be  found  by  a  higher 
method?  Is  the  higher  appeal  not  to  what  is  known 
of  God,  to  human  consciousness,  and  to  the  u  fruits  ” 
of  that  which  is  spoken?  And  when  these  methods 
of  judgment  are  exhausted,  what  if  the  supernatural 
should  transcend  reason  and  appeal  to  faith?  What 
if  the  universe  be  larger  than  we  had  conceived? 
Four  men  undertake  to  write  a  life;  we  are  not  aware 
who  appointed  them,  or  to  what  secret  resource,  if 
any,  they  had  access ;  we  have  the  results  of  their 
labor  before  us ;  shall  we  reject  one  because  he  is  a 
little  more  or  less  minute  than  the  others?  The 
author  himself,  under  the  influence  of  some  such  con¬ 
sideration  as  this  inquiry  suggests,  seems  to  have 
modified  the  plan  which  he  laid  down  with  such 
precision,  for  he  allows  that  “  evidence  inferior  to  the 
best  may  have  very  great  probability,  and  there  are 
certain  obvious  criteria  by  which  this  probability  may 
be  estimated.”  Certainly  ;  but  if  we  accept  a  manV 


CONTROVERSIAL  NOTES  ON  44  ECCE  HOMO.”  369 

testimony  when  it  agrees  with  the  testimony  of  an¬ 
other  man,  is  that  not  a  reason  for  accepting  it  when 
he  speaks  upon  subjects  to  which  the  other  man  does 
not  refer?  But  we  need  not  all  this  pleading  on  be¬ 
half  of  the  Gospels :  their  spit'it  is  one ;  the  whole 
tone  is  self-consistent ;  and  the  moral  energy  of  the 
doctrine  renders  it  an  easy  responsibility  to  accept 
all  the  statements  which  relate  to  matters  of  fact. 

All  that  the  author  has  said  does  not  touch  the 
starting-point,  viz.,  the  Incarnation.  Even  on  his 
own  principle  of  accrediting  evidence  it  is  not  easy 
to  see  how  he  has  overlooked  this  fact,  for  three  out 
of  four  of  the  evangelists  distinctly  point  out  the 
supernatural  descent  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  Mark  him¬ 
self  introduces  him  at  once  as  44  the  Son  of  God.” 
The  44  rudiment  of  certainty”  is  surely  here,  even  upon 
the  author’s  own  showing ;  so  that,  without  imputing 
any  intentions  to  the  author,  we  cannot  but  feel  sur¬ 
prised  that  he  has  not  found  in  Christ’s  Incarnation 
some  explanation  of  Christ’s  life  and  work.  We  feel 
this  the  more  because  the  writer  has  not  been  faithful 
to  his  own  principle  of  interpretation.  On  the  twelfth 
page  of  his  Preface  he  speaks  of  himself  as  44  resting 
upon  a  basis  of  absolutely  uniform  testimony,”  yet  in 

the  couise  of  his  work  he  reverts  again  and  again, 

* 

either  by  elaborate  statement  or  distinct  allusion,  to 
cases  which  are  not  supported  by  any  such  testimony. 

1 6  * 


37° 


ECCE  DEUS. 


He  lays  down  a  principle,  and  immediately  departs 
from  it.  For  example,  he  refers  to  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount ;  but  where  is  the  “  basis  of  absolutely  uniform 
testimony”  in  this  case?  The  Sermon  is  reported  by 
two  only  of  the  four  evangelists.  The  author  draws 
a  beautiful  picture  of  the  circumstances  connected 
with  the  woman  taken  in  adultery  ;  but  where  is  the 
“basis  of  absolutely  uniform  testimony”  in  her  case? 
The  instance  is  related  by  one  only  of  the  four  evan¬ 
gelists.  So  also  in  the  case  of  Zaccheus,  which  the 
author  brings  into  special  prominence,  we  have  the 
testimony  of  one  evangelist  only  ;  yet  the  author  speaks 
of  “  resting  upon  a  basis  of  absolutely  uniform  testi¬ 
mony.”  The  same  remark  applies  to  Nicodemus,  on 
whose  case  the  author  remarks.  What  we  have  to 
complain  of  is,  that  the  writer  of  Ecce  Homo  has  laid 
down  a  principle  and  then  practically  abandoned  it. 
He  has,  indeed,  referred  to  what  he  terms  u  inferior 
evidence,”  but  this  does  not  touch  the  ground  of  com¬ 
plaint.  For  example,  he  says  that  “the  account  of 
the  woman  taken  in  adultery  has  scarcely  any  external 
authority,  but  it  seems  to  derive  great  probability  from 
the  fact  that  the  conduct  attributed  to  Christ  in  it  is 
left  half  explained,  so  that,  as  it  stands,  it  does  not 
satisfy  the  impulses  which  lead  to  the  invention  and 
reception  of  fictitious  stories.”  It  would  seem,  then, 
that  a  case  needs  only  to  be  “  half  explained”  in  order 


CONTROVERSIAL  NOTES  ON  ECCE  HOMO.”  ?>7 1 

0 

to  get  credit  for  “great  probability,”  and  if  the  invent¬ 
or  be  unable  to  finish  his  fiction,  so  much  more  likely 
is  he  to  be  accepted  as  an  honest  man.  If  the  author’s 
principle  of  eclecticism  was  sound,  he  ought  not  to 
have  departed  from  it ;  if  he  departed  from  it  at  all,  he 
should  have  given  preference  to  the  greater,  and  not 
to  the  minuter  incidents,  —  to  such  an  event  as  the 
Incarnation  in  preference  to  the  invitation  which  the 
guests  refused  ;  but  his  principle  failed  in  its  practi¬ 
cal  application,  so  that  “  absolutely  uniform  testi¬ 
mony”  has  been  supplemented  by  cases  which  rest 
upon  individual  authority. 


No  formal  epilogue  is  attempted.  We  thought  that 
the  dual  element  that  was  in  Jesus  Christ  was  of  great 
significance  ;  so  great,  indeed,  that  apart  from  it  his 
life  could  not  be  interpreted.  Throughout  the  whole 
inquiry  this  has  been  kept  steadily  in  view  ;  with  what 
advantage  it  is  for  others  to  determine.  We  have 
endeavored  to  find  out  God,  through  a  study  of  his 
Son.  We  understand  what  this  means  in  human  life  ; 
if  we  would  know  any  man  of  deep  character,  who  is 
not  immediately  self-revealing,  we  shall  make  the 
surest  progress  by  carefully  studying  the  disposition 
and  habits  of  the  child  who  most  resembles  him.  To 
study  the  father  through  the  child  is  like  studying  a 
foreign  language  alphabetically,  grammatically,  and 
analytically,  —  not  catching  it  in  common  conversa- 


ECCE  DEUS. 


372 

tion  so  as  to  be  merely  able  to  express  an  opinion  or  a 
want,  but  penetrating  it  philosophically,  and  so  be¬ 
coming  master  of  it.  To  get  through  the  wrinkles 
and  folds  of  the  father’s  mature  character  may  be  im¬ 
possible,  but  the  child  is  open,  simple,  legible  in  every 
letter  ;  —  from  him  we  get  the  father’s  own  start-point, 
and  from  the  father  we  get  the  other  extreme  point. 
With  the  extremes  before  us,  we  may  proceed  to 
analysis  and  interpretation.  Is  it  not  much  the  same 
with  Jesus  Christ?  Emphatically,  he  was  the  bright¬ 
ness  of  the  Father’s  glory  and  the  express  image  of 
his  person  ;  he  was  the  Son  only-begotten  and  well- 
beloved.  To  study  him  is  to  study  God  in  his  most 
legible  aspect ;  so  to  speak,  the  letters  are  large,  and 
so  formed  as  to  arrest  untrained  eyes  ;  —  mighty  deeds, 
mightier  words,  and  still  mightier  prayers.  We  see 
there  how  far  God  can  come  down  on  the  human  side, 
—  how  far  he  can  be  man  without  ceasing  to  be  God ; 
and  it  was  so  far,  that  he  who  had  seen  the  Son  had 
actually  seen  the  Father  ! 

To-day  the  great  question  that  is  stirring  men’s 
hearts  to  their  very  depths  is,  Who  is  this  Jesus  Christ? 
His  life  is  becoming  to  us  a  new  life,  as  if  we  had 
ne\*er  seen  a  word  of  it.  There  is  round  about  us  an 
influence  so  strange,  so  penetrating,  so  subtle,  yet  so 
mighty,  that  we  are  obliged  to  ask  the  great  heaving 
world  of  time  to  be  silent  for  a  while,  that  we  may 
see  just  what  we  are  and  where  we  are.  That  in¬ 
fluence  is  the  life  of  Jesus  Christ.  We  cannot  get 
clear  of  it ;  we  hear  it  in  the  tones  of  joy,  we  feel 
it  stealing  across  the  darkness  of  sorrow,  —  we  see  it 
where  we  least  expect  it,  —  even  men  who  have  trav- 


CONTROVERSIAL  NOTES  ON  “  ECCE  HOMO.”  373 

elled  farthest  from  it  seem  only  to  have  come  round' 
to  it  again  ;  and  while  they  have  been  undervaluing 
the  inner  worth  of  Jesus  Christ,  they  have  actually 
been  living  on  the  virtue  which  came  out  of  the  hem 
of  his  garment.  Yes  ;  it  seems  we  must  touch  him 
either  at  the  heart  or  the  hem,  —  if  we  will  not  have 
him  for  the  soul,  we  must  have  him  for  the  body. 
What  if  men  reject  him  altogether?  Then,  as  of  old, 
there  is  no  choice  for  them  but  Barabbas,  and  Barab- 
bas  is  still  a  robber.  We  see  the  alternative.  Pilate 
still  puts  the  question  —  “  Whom  will  ye  that  I  release 
unto  you  ?  Barabbas,  or  Jesus  which  is  called  Christ?  *9 
The  voice  of  the  people  was  once  for  the  robber ;  it 
will  yet  be  lifted  up,  never  more  to  change,  for  the 
Son  of  God. 


» 


